A truly enlightening read — “9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America (and the Four Who Tried to Save Her)”
Posted by EasyCZ75@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 111 comments
I highly recommend this book by Brion McClanahan. Truly enlightening.
Funnyllama20@reddit
Please don’t downvote me to oblivion for my ignorance: how did Lincoln screw up America? I feel like the “no more enslaving humans” was a neat thing.
dagoofmut@reddit
Some might say he made us all slaves.
Funnyllama20@reddit
I don’t feel very enslaved. Been a while since I was forced under penalty of punishment or death to do the bidding of a master.
dagoofmut@reddit
"I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only the knew they were slaves."
--Harriet Tubman.
Funnyllama20@reddit
I’m glad you had the freedom to look up that quote and type it on a device you presumably own. Sorry that you feel enslaved despite being a person with significant freedom.
dagoofmut@reddit
Gives phone.
See. You're not a slave.
aModernProposal@reddit
He started the income tax on the union to pay for the war. In the late 1800s, the Supreme Court deemed in unconstitutional. Then in 1913 Wilson’s administration ratified the 16th amendment. It was originally only going to be placed on the top income earners…now here we are.
AcuzioRS@reddit
that sounds like more a Woodrow thing than a Lincoln thing
dine_o_mite@reddit
And here we are again with Harris's possible plan to tax unrealized capital gains "only on the super rich".
man9875@reddit
Only on top earners....hmmmm....sounds familiar.
different_option101@reddit
Lincoln is also the father of big time federal spending on “public projects”
GiuliaAquaTofanaToo@reddit
It was the compromise that allowed them to repeal alcohol.
johndhall1130@reddit
Lincoln couldn’t have cared less about the slaves. The EP was a means to end. He said if he could prevent the war and not free a single slave he would have.
IncreaseLive7661@reddit
I wouldn't say that Lincoln didn't care about the slaves. I assume you're referring to the Greeley letter when you state that. For greater context Lincoln writes
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save thise Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
Notably in that same letter he writes
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. Yours,
A. LINCOLN.
This is not the full letter but feel free to look it up if you feel I'm wrong.
RandomUserV2@reddit
He suspended habeas corpus and put reporters who wrote negative articles about him in jail
legend_of_wiker@reddit
This and even more. Dude is a fucking wack job and should be viewed in the same light as any other dictator bastard.
I spicy cringe every time people mention lincoln like he's some saint.
itsonlyastrongbuzz@reddit
How did temporary measures to save the Union screw up America long term?
LagerHead@reddit
First, why is it so important to save the union? Second, how does trampling on the most fundamental rights for which the union supposedly stands save it?
Chirem@reddit
You ever sit at the top of a long slide?
Presidents are now committing felonies to "save the union" so frequently we're trying to figure out how to handle that without actually having to save the union
itsonlyastrongbuzz@reddit
post hoc ergo propter hoc
rjaku@reddit
That was already starting to happen across the Western world. "A house divided against itself will not stand." Then why force the confederacy to stay with the union? He was actively against states' rights and was pushing central government control over trade. The South wanted to sell the raw materials to Europe, which would've left the industrious north with nothing to produce as the middle man. The Civil War was about economics and states' rights, something Lincoln trampled on.
YeahsureProbably@reddit
Hello! Civil war enthusiast here!
The 'Western World' was a mix-match of fledgling Latin-American republics that would either collapse or descend into war in the next few years. Europe consisted of totalitarian monarchies with wretched living conditions and horrible class division. The only nation like the United States was the United States.
He did not. He had no desire to intervene with their attempts at becoming an independent union- but he warned them that if they attacked U.S military installations that he'd have to retaliate. They responded by totally leveling fort Sumter.
He was not actively against state rights. He also was not against slavery until the war. In terms of "central government" control over trade; the federal government, under Section 8, Article I, written in the Bill of Rights, will have control over trade and commerce. It is not the will of the states to decide who they conduct business with outside of the Union, and it never has been.
The Southern states had already been exporting resources abroad for decades by 1860.
The North was too important to ever be a middle man. The North was the spearhead of the United States at the time, and the South was usually regarded as a burden. At first, the North heavily relied on the South for food but come the Northwest and the West Of The Mississippi, these two regions outproduced the South in actual food, something the North needed more then tobacco and cotton.
I agree with you completely. I view it as necessary at the time, but am against the suspension of Habeas Corpus and Freedom of Press. In terms of economics, I also agree with you. It was about the North wanting to take away the South's entire economy; Slavery, an immoral, unholy, unjust evil that should not be permitted to exist, ever.
PugnansFidicen@reddit
Lincoln absolutely did interfere with the attempt to declare independence.
A sovereign state must have territorial authority to be considered meaningfully independent. The South Carolina militia (and soon, the newly formed Confederate army) didn't want to destroy Fort Sumter or harm any of the United States soldiers stationed there, but they did want them to withdraw the military presence, and gave repeated formal notice of such, over many months, followed by a final deadline to withdraw.
Lincoln responded by ordering the troops at Fort Sumter to stay put, and sending more ships to resupply them.
If someone asks you to leave their property, repeatedly, and you refuse, then you're trespassing, and the use of force is justified to evict you.
Of course, that doesn't apply if you don't consider their claim to the property as legitimate in the first place. Which is basically the position Lincoln took toward South Carolina's declaration of secession: that this is still US territory, not the territory of any other so-called sovereign state, and therefore we have a right to retain a military presence here.
Incidentally, it's not accurate to say the Confederates "totally leveled" Fort Sumter either. Yes, it suffered damage under bombardment, but the fort still stood at the end of it and no one was killed during the "battle" itself. The action was only a brief siege; the US army garrison within the fort surrendered within 48 hours upon realizing they were outgunned, outnumbered, and effectively cut off from resupply or reinforcements.
The only two casualties related to the battle were a couple of poor dudes who were killed by a cannon malfunction explosion...during the surrender ceremony.
YeahsureProbably@reddit
You open by later contradicting yourself which is slightly humorous. Lincoln did not “ absolutely interfere,” he reinforced federal property under threat of invasion. Additionally, while Fort Sumter’s stone and brick walls may have been mostly unaffected, the interior was destroyed by fire caused during the correspondence and the fort was rendered useless without any proper facilities.
buckyVanBuren@reddit
Ft Sumter had no real interior to begin with.
It was a fort that was not complete, was not in use and was in fact vacant except for a few guards until U.S. Army Major Robert Anderson abandoned the indefensible Fort Moultrie, spiking its large guns, burning its gun carriages, and taking its smaller cannon with him. He secretly relocated companies E and H (127 men, 13 of them musicians) of the 1st U.S. Artillery to Fort Sumter on his own initiative, without orders from his superiors, attempting to set up an embargo against the Port of Charleston.
The Union continued to attempt to resupply the Fort with arms and supplies, endangering the citizens of the city. There was no choice but to remove the threat.
PugnansFidicen@reddit
You're missing the point. You originally said Lincoln had no desire to interfere with the states' attempts to secede and form an independent union, which is plainly false.
If Lincoln had allowed them to form an independent union without interference, he would have recognized the US government no longer had a right to maintain military presence in what was now sovereign territory of a foreign country. The governor of South Carolina gave them numerous notices and requests to vacate over the course of several months; it's not like the S. Carolinians just woke up one day and randomly chose violence.
The US army troops at Fort Sumter weren't under threat of invasion. They were the invasion.
YeahsureProbably@reddit
Wrong and wrong again. I’m not sure where you’re getting your facts from but it’s starting to worry me. I did infact say that Lincoln had no intention to interfere- I did not say he was going to help them. Lincoln was not going to help them. The rest of the argument is highly opinionated so I will not be addressing it.
PugnansFidicen@reddit
Dude, this is childish. You call yourself a Civil War enthusiast but can't be bothered to address an argument you don't like in rational terms?
From pretty standard textbooks and academic articles I've read about the Battle and the War over the years...nothing out of the ordinary. You clearly are uncomfortable with the argument I'm making, but can you point out any actual claimed facts I've gotten wrong? This is all pretty well-trodden ground, historically speaking.
Or, how about an analogy? If Canada formally broke ties of allegiance with the US and asked us to withdraw the US Air Force detachment currently stationed at CFB North Bay by the 1st of January 2025, and we kept our forces there anyway, would the Canadians be justified in using force to effect their departure, or not?
If you think the Canadians would be justified in using force in this hypothetical, but not the South Carolinians regarding the US Army forces at Fort Sumter, why? What's the difference? Was secession invalid in the first place?
You are clearly making some assumptions somewhere around what exactly qualifies a government to exert sovereign authority over its territory. What are those assumptions?
YeahsureProbably@reddit
What argument? I have been debunking exaggerations, opinions, fallacies and contradictions from you for nearly 24 hours now. Please do not reply.
PugnansFidicen@reddit
You haven't debunked anything, just said "wrong" multiple times and implied I'm getting my facts from somewhere not reputable, which is not the case. Everything factual I've claimed is based on fairly standard history books that I've read about the War (McPherson, etc.), and the rest (that you said was "highly opinionated" and so declined to actually address) is interpretation.
I would highly recommend reading the actual correspondence between Major Anderson (the US Army commander in charge of the garrison at Fort Sumter) and Governor Pickens of South Carolina, and between Governor Pickens and President Buchanan prior to Lincoln's inauguration, which is available in a collection on wikimedia commons.
divinecomedian3@reddit
"Slavery, an immoral, unholy, unjust evil that should not be permitted to exist, ever."
I agree. So let people form their own army and target slaveowners specifically. Don't force people to go to war for you and waste other people's resources to fund it.
itsonlyastrongbuzz@reddit
It was about slavery, full stop.
The specific reason for secession in South Carolina was Lincoln’s hostility to slavery and failure of the federal government to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.
Snagtooth@reddit
I want to point out real quick that Libertarism, to me, is acknowledging the complexity and beauty of the individual and their rights.
So, I think that you and the guy you're responding to are both right and wrong.
YES the civil war, as a whole, was about slavery, but it was also about state rights. The civil war was about THE STATES RIGHT TO DECIDE ON SLAVERY.
You both are just overgeneralizing and painting the other as the bad guy. Slavery is bad. Forcing other states to do something they may not want to do is also bad.
Personally, I think slavery is such a moral evil that force was justified in that particular instance, BUT the power structures and presidences that were necessary, in my opinion, to achieve that goal are a problem that we are still feeling the ramifications of. Now that we have achieved the goal of legally ending slavery nationwide, we NEED to make an effort to eliminate those supposedly temporary federal powers.
Does that make sense? If anyone has any historical tidbit that might shed light on this, please let me know.
lochquel@reddit
I think you can tell a lot about a person in what they tell you about slavery in relation to the Civil War. If the North was so anti-slavery, they would have declared it so immediately. I've been told I was completely wrong that the Civil War was anything other than slavery, even if I had a college history professor teach that it was about state's rights.
If you're not listening to any other possiblilities, then there's really not room for debate, but just showing that you need to be right.
Naarujuana@reddit
It should be noted that the “economics” part was like… 90% about slavery. Simply was the most politically polarizing issue of the time, led to secession.
lurkingchalantly@reddit
The civil had a little to do with the states articles of succession and the constitution of the confederacy. And those argued quite a bit about slavery.
elliottok@reddit
lol really great question. what you’ll find is “libertarians” are really not libertarians. they are fanatical right wing lunatics who were cool with people being property
Funnyllama20@reddit
It’s interesting that you call us both fanatical and lunatics while intruding in our subreddit. It sounds like maybe you’re projecting a little bit here.
Secure-Apple-5793@reddit
He was a big fat federalist
spaztick1@reddit
I haven't read the book yet, but I intend to.
I would expect Bush Jr to place before Obama or Wilson. He greatly expanded government power to spy on US citizens and made us all less safe at the same time by entering into pointless wars.
Washington should be one of the four. He set many good precedents.
Ya_Boi_Konzon@reddit
Not sure about Bush vs Obama, but Wilson was def worse than Bush. He greatly expanded the state which allowed everyone after him to make it even worse.
ginga__@reddit
Who were the four?
economichistory127@reddit
Jefferson, Tyler, Cleveland, Coolidge
BraveDawgs1993@reddit
I can agree with that list
claybine@reddit
The Confederate John Tyler?
EvilCommieRemover@reddit
You must be new here
brencameron@reddit
I have great admiration for Grover Cleveland. I don't know much about Tyler and Coolidge.
Jefferson owned people. That's a mark against him by any measure. And no excuse or minimizing will convince me otherwise.
nanners09@reddit
so it's a book about states rights, but I'm not interested In anything promoting John Tyler, dude was a fuckwit buried under a flag of a foreign country
Mr_Youyagi@reddit
It should be 10, as I dont see Clinton there
ResolveWild8536@reddit
I mean Bush had issues... But he at least had a surplus?
bethechaoticgood21@reddit
I'd say Bush Jr. should be in there, too
august111966@reddit
Both of the Bush men tbh.
Misterfahrenheit120@reddit
I still don’t agree with the Abraham Lincoln hate, but everyone else on here, yeah, pretty much
ReplacementSweet4659@reddit
Guess free speech and due process aren't that important to some people 🤷...
...Nor is the Shenandoah Valley Campaign. Or murdering 600,000 Americans
Jmcduff5@reddit
I mean to stop a war of aggression from the southern states to maintain the enslavement. How is any of that protected in the confederate states
ReplacementSweet4659@reddit
Okay, let's take a look at this from the libertarian perspective, since that's the sub we're in. As per Natural Law and the NAP, if you violate the rights of another, you admit to not recognizing such rights and therefore forfeit your own, and so you have consented to aggression against you. That is how justice works in the eyes of libertarians. Is slavery evil? Yes. Why? Because it's cruel, and owning people is an aggression. Aggression by who? The gentry. But it wasn't JUST the gentry that was victimized by Lincoln, now was it? That said, while action against the gentry itself IS justified, action against those who were not committing aggressions was NOT justified. To say that the whole South should be punished for the sins of their wealthy minority (minority as in class minority not racial minority) is collectivist thought, and collectivism is the opposite of individualism and individualism is among the tenets of libertarianism. That thinking is also used as a case for military intervention, which we have been known to oppose for these very same reasons. Aggression should be condemned, always. That's why libertarians typically don't like Lincoln.
XiphosEdge@reddit
I'll probably get downvoted for this, but how did Teddy Roosevelt screw up America?
SANcapITY@reddit
You should read the book. I listen to his podcast daily and his knowledge of American history is just immense.
ni-wom@reddit
Teddy Roosevelt has a podcast?!
Thanamite@reddit
Immense enough to think Abraham Lincoln screwed up America?
trufus_for_youfus@reddit
You must be lost.
SANcapITY@reddit
Is this a serious comment?
thewholetruthis@reddit
Nice try, Brion marketing department.
Thanamite@reddit
Abraham Lincoln screwed up America? Sure…
clarkstud@reddit
No doubt.
RocksCanOnlyWait@reddit
Lincoln's actions paved the way for a strong federal government and weakening of state governments.
Up until the US Civil War, states' rights were very important (which is why I'm confused as to why Jackson is included), and the government largely kept to the powers it was granted in constitution. Lincoln and the Republicans favored a stronger federal government to preserve the union. To accomplish that, they imposed martial law in some states, and significantly curtailed 1st amendment rights during the war. Then after the war, you had Reconstruction era policy (which amounted to occupation).
It's also important to be aware that slavery itself was not the immediate cause of the US Civil War. The issue was that northern politicians were always looking for ways to subvert the constitution in order to ban slavery - usually by growing federal power. This is why states were admitted as pairs of free and slave states in the Antebellum period. Otherwise the fear was that northern states would pass a slavery ban by stacking the Senate with anti-slavery politicians. The States' Rights advocates wanted states to make the decision individually about slavery - not use the federal government to force it.
Also important to remember that slavery was normal at that time. Only Britain had banned it by the time of the Civil War.
Brendanlendan@reddit
France had banned it top
RocksCanOnlyWait@reddit
Missed that. France banned slavery in colonial possessions in 1847 (it was outlawed in France itself for much longer).
LagerHead@reddit
How many hundreds of thousands of people had to die in France and England for that to happen?
Brendanlendan@reddit
Shit, At least 10
lapstrake@reddit
The southern states argued for many federal laws protecting the institution of Slavery that would trample state's rights.They were not some bastion of freedom and upholding state's rights over federal power. Why do libertarians flirt with the southern side of the Civil War? Unequivocally slavery is the most antithetical thing to the libertarian philosophy. Slavery is worse than communism. If the south was arguing for keeping the communist state's rights would libertarians still be defending the south? We sure like arguing against state's rights to trample our freedom when it comes to individual rights. What's more trampling our individual rights than state sponsored slavery?
azshalle@reddit
It’s a little odd I don’t see the current one even discussed in the comments.
EasyCZ75@reddit (OP)
This was published before Trump and Biden
LagerHead@reddit
He's simply continuing the damage that was done long before he arrived in the White House.
brssn@reddit
Reagan screwed your Navy…
jt7855@reddit
How did Jackson screwup America? He ended the central bank
udderlyfun2u@reddit
Have you ever heard of the Indian removal act f 1830?
jt7855@reddit
Yes.
Friedyekian@reddit
Probably just about everything else he did. The man was wild. He’s definitely an interesting guy to read about
jt7855@reddit
I really like how they want to rewrite history based on the standards of a writer from our woke society
TK3754@reddit
I’ve got this on my short list. Tackling Rothbard’s The Progressive Era, as well.
DangerDan127@reddit
How did teddy mess up America?
CigaretteTrees@reddit
I’ve only watched the documentary series and read a little about TR but I know he started the FDA, he made stricter interstate commerce regulations and lots of labor regulations. These were probably all well meaning at the time like a lot regulation but we see the beast they’ve grown into.
Materialist1@reddit
He also started the FBI.
CigaretteTrees@reddit
Yikes
right-5@reddit
Read Andrew Napolitano's book about Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson for more details.
ImHuckTheRiverOtter@reddit
He was the driving force behind the regulatory movement. The endless bureaucratic administrative dweebs that siphon money at every step along the way: in a lot of respects started with TR.
mcmachete@reddit
Pro-war, preferred big business centralized control of the economy (especially favoring his friends at the House of Morgan), and was effectively the father of progressivism. Led to the likes of Hoover and Wilson and FDR.
As Rothbard put it, Teddy was the father of the Welfare-Warfare state.
Read Rothbard’s “The Progressive Era” (and if I remember correctly “The Betrayal of the American Right”).
bsweet35@reddit
I haven’t read up on him in a while, but iirc he laid part of the groundwork for our aggressive foreign policy and regulatory state
That-Guy-Over-There8@reddit
If reagan is not on that list, I doubt they know what they're talking about.
ImTalking2AnIdiot@reddit
Mind you, I haven't read the book and no nothing about what points the author would make, which I very well might end up agreeing with, but from my own personal historical knowledge I'd have to disagree with Washington, Lincoln, Teddy and (perhaps an unpopular opinion) Nixon. Truman is a maybe. I find Wilson to be the worst. FDR, Johnson and Obama are ridiculously overrated, but it would be difficult to criticize them to the uniformed bc they've all been historically beatified for different reasons.
paladin_7785@reddit
Maybe him bringing in the buddy system into the Federal Government for the first time? "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."
ImTalking2AnIdiot@reddit
Good point.
august111966@reddit
Jackson was just an overall piece of shit human being. And extremely corrupt. Like “perhaps the reason we even have the level of corruption in government that we currently have” level of corrupt.
EasyCZ75@reddit (OP)
That’s not Washington.
ImTalking2AnIdiot@reddit
It's not? I thought it was. Who is it then?
georgebeastman@reddit
This guy x 4. Book must be dated
rjaku@reddit
He really wasn't awful compared to those listed.
bethechaoticgood21@reddit
Yeah. You got to look how we got here. He's a clown, but we were a circus long before him.
garnorm@reddit
Pretty sure the book came out in 2016, so before this came a reality…
Free_Mixture_682@reddit
Truman is the one I am not sure I understand. Is it because he used the bomb on Japan? Or is the Cold War being blamed on him?
I am not a Truman fan but it is hard for me to say he really screwed up, especially compared to some others.
Jackson getting rid of the 2nd BUS was awesome but Trail of Tears, was horrific.
BraveProgram@reddit
Anyone know what he said about Obama lol
AToastyDolphin@reddit
Probably could have written another entire book too.
Spacesmuge@reddit
Should be 10. I dont see trump there.
notgmoney@reddit
I'll save you the time of asking who is which(not my opinion just a screenshot)
https://imgur.com/a/NYSkEsf
Classic_Day2530@reddit
Sledgecrowbar@reddit
Come on, I just ate.
notgmoney@reddit
They really are clueless lol. Need to travel more
Moar_Donuts@reddit
🤮
neon@reddit
who are the 4.
Coolidge, jefferson, madison, Monroe?
Kyosuke-D@reddit
Wilson —- FDR —— Reagan(and Clinton)