"You repeat the lie about Liberia when he never believed the Colonization plan was ever feasible and he certainly wasn't planning on doing this after the war."

Liar.

http://www.amazon.com/Colonization-After-Emancipation-Movement-Resettlement/dp/0826219098

And Grant was a slaveowner himself, who didn't free his slaves until he was legally forced to in 1865... some progressive hero there.

"So, just stop attacking secession as a bad thing. It is essential if you have any inkling of what freedom is."

So what was the point of secession if not for the rights of states, i.e. the right to own slaves?

You're looking at the costs without looking at benefits. What about the situation where the federal government forces citizens of a state to pay for something (like health insurance or contraception), the state demands the right to secession.

Freedom allows for good as well as evil, that's the fucking point man. But the genius behind freedom is that when it allows bad to happen (let's say the Confederacy holds slaves, and the Union never went to war), it allows good the chance (not by force) to overcome evil through peaceful means i.e. economic motivation, religious motivation, etc. Get a clue.

But as soon as you take away freedom, you take away individuals' ability to do good. And that is the worst thing a government can do.

In the case of the pre-Civil War South, the government was threatening to take away the freedom to own slaves. Healthcare and contraception are completely beside the point.

"But as soon as you take away freedom, you take away individuals' ability to do good. And that is the worst thing a government can do."

Are you kidding me? First, the worst thing a government can do is legalize the ownership of another human being, which is exactly what the Confederacy did. So much for those "good" individuals.

People always fall back on that. Do you not wonder why the drinking age in the US is 21? Because the Feds said it was. You haven't the freedom to decide the age for yourselves. Why have several states legalized marijuana and yet it is still illegal? Because The Feds said it was. Once again I'm not advocating either thing but just giving examples of what State rights is all about. When you live in a free society you are allowed to decide your rules as a collective whole. When you are not allowed to do that you are no longer free. I know the slave s will be brought up again but keep in mind that they were not part of your society "officially" nor would they be for quite some time. Slavery is wrong. It did exist for thousands of years and actually still exists today. In the traditional way it's very small but there is a new type of slavery which is even bigger. It's called financial slavery.

Only Lincoln and Washington merit being on any "best of" presidents list.

Everyone else (well sort of - not the total losers and crooks) depends on their time period. Coolidge, Clinton, and Cleveland, for example, were great presidents for their time period. Any of them in period that was, to be it most directly, very important, would have been failures. But as post-crisis peacetime presidents, they excelled. Similarly, if Grant had been president during the Civil War, it would have ended in the middle of 1862 at the latest. But he was not the president at the time he would have been most effective.

A more interesting question is to consider most underrated and overrated presidents. This thread has mentioned Andrew Jackson and James K. Polk, two bloodthirsty warmongers who remain at the top of many historical rankings of presidents despite being repulsive and vicious.

And your country is definitely one of the masters.

"In the case of the pre-Civil War South, the government was threatening to take away the freedom to own slaves"

No, it was not. Lincoln stated quite emphatically in his first inaugural that he would not go to war with the seceding states over slavery (but he *would* go to war to collect the new tariffs that had just been approved by the congress).

Oh, repelling an english invasion is less important than starting a civl war?

In no particular order: jefferson, jackson, van buren, cleveland, coolidge.

If the North really cared about their "morals" then why didn't they just buy all the slaves and set them free. You are missing the damn point. Government almost never do good. The South's government forced slaves to be held indefinitely by their masters. Gov't does bad...check. The North, instead of peacefully ending a scenario that simply requires an actual effort, took the lazy way out via war. Gov't does bad again... check.

Clinton as a great president... please look at foreign policy before typing such nonsense

Frosty, please explain why Clinton was not a good president for the period 1992-2000.

Sanctions almost always stoke countries into war, hurting the poor in that country and helping the rich in that country. See Iran and Iraq. Foreign Aid to countries always take money from our poor to give to that country's rich. See Russia

And the constant bombings of Iraq lead to war

Constant foreign aid to Israel, who is more than sufficiently equipped to defend themselves, naturally pisses off Israel's neighbors, especially since Israel continues to fuck around with Palestine. And Israel's neighbors recognize that we are the cause of Israel's bullshit. No wonder they all hate us.

According to this thread, there were no good Presidents.

Cleveland and maybe Coolidge and maybe Washington and a big maybe on Reagan, but reagan has just one big flaw

No, no, no, and just one big no.

Clinton was essentially a humanitarian interventionist on steroids. The sanctions on iraq killed 500000 iraqi children, his policies in the balkans included smuggling radical mujahadeen into the region, he intervened in angola, haita, and most diasastrously in somalia. He bombed a civilian sudanese chemical facility to bolster his position during the monica lewisnky scandal. In the realm of foreign policy at least, clinton was a terrible president.

^^ Well, at least you can write such a list down. Not every country had the luck to even have 5 presidents, especially if we discard unelected "president" strongmen/dictators/foreign puppets...

why?

See: this entire thread.

Cleveland pissed out windows. Fuck him.

If I have to pick at least five I guess reagan, but he didnt go all the way

There were no great presidents. Your presidents have no real power. They decide almost nothing. They do as they are told by their Federal Reserve. This is why the Obama administration's foreign policy is Identical to Bush's foreign policy. They both have/had the same boss. The time will come and in fact it is already beginning where a world central government will be telling you how to live your lives. Will you accept that? Or will you secede? I vote for seceding. Although my vote will count for no more than yours does.

Where are you from CK?

Nixon. Ended the Vietnam War & cooled down the cold war.

Truman. Sacked the idiot MacArthur.

Pierce. Got ignored by everyone (inaction is sometimes a virtue) .

Aitchison. Only lasted a day and spent much of it intoxicated.

Coolidge. Inoffensive chap.

Lincoln - a true leader; drove to what was right in spite of unimaginable consequences, not to mention being a brilliant executive and orator

Truman - Sacked the out-of-control MacArthur (MacArthur was an ass, but not an idiot), made some tough decisions and restructured much of the military and government

Teddy Roosevelt - I love our national parks

Nixon - if he hadn't gone psychotically paranoid he would be remembered as a brilliant man who ended the Vietnam War and many other foreign policy achievements

Reagan - restored optimism to a demoralized country; broke the Soviet Union (at least accelerated the process)

^^^^^ retard