The Instigator
Pricetag
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
clsmooth
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points

Lincoln and FDR were fascists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,429 times Debate No: 2023
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (16)

 

Pricetag

Con

If we're going to do this, let's do it out right. I believe that Lincoln and FDR impeded on the Constitution with care and only enough to keep this Nation together. I know that you disagree with this claim so, I will give you this first round to lay out your reasons for why you think that they had the will to become dictators of a fascist government. Either by their actions or their words, prove this claim to me.
clsmooth

Pro

Let's begin with a definition of fascism. Here is what I'm basing my arguments on:

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology that considers individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity."

"Fascists opposed what they believe to be laissez-faire or quasi-laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the Great Depression. People of many different political stripes blamed laissez-faire capitalism for the Great Depression, and fascists promoted their ideology as a "third way" between capitalism and Marxian socialism. Their policies manifested as a radical extension of government control over the economy without wholesale expropriation of the means of production. Fascist governments nationalized some key industries, managed their currencies and made some massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic planning measures."

Breaking it down

1. A political ideology that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state: Lincoln, the Whigs, and later the Republicans, clearly believed this. They wanted high protectionist tariffs to subsidize internal improvements for the alleged "common good." Of course, the real purpose was to aggrandize themselves as the ruling party, but so sick is the fascist mind that it thinks this is for the "common good." The interests of the central state were exalted above the individual states and their citizens under Lincoln.

FDR's New Deal was clearly the same idea. Individual liberties mattered nothing -- what mattered was the supposed "common good" and the preservation of the centralized state.

2. Authoritarianism: Lincoln imprisoned political opponents without charges. He ordered newspaper printing presses destroyed and editors jailed. It was a crime to criticize Lincoln. FDR, for his part, was also authoritarian. When the Supreme Court ruled elements of the New Deal unconstitutional, he threatened to "pack the court" with new members who were favorable to his fascist ideology. How is this not authoritarian? How is ordering the internment of Japanese American citizens not authoritarian or fascist? It clearly is.

3. National unity: Clearly, this was Lincoln's goal -- "preserving the Union." In reality, he destroyed the original intent of the Union, which was voluntary confederation. FDR was also a grand centralizer and enemy of states' rights.

4. Lincoln and FDR were both adamantly opposed to laissez-faire capitalism. Lincoln wanted high taxes, protectionism, a central bank controlled by the government issuing fiat money, and corporate welfare for "internal improvements." You can't get any more anticapitalist than that. FDR was almost as bad -- he created tons of new bureaucracies, regulations, and planning boards that regimented and regulated every aspect of private business. He also instituted price and wage controls, as is characteristic of fascism.

5. Managed currency: Lincoln shared the Hamiltonian/Whig dream of a national bank issuing fiat money. He unconstitutionally printed greenbacks and forced people to accept them under unconstitutional legal-tender laws. FDR suspended gold convertibility and confiscated the gold of private citizens. How much more fascist can you get?

"Fascist" is not an empty slur. It means something. Not only were Lincoln and FDR fascists, but virtually every member of Congress from both parties today is, too. They (almost) all support the things that are outlined above, to one degree or another.
Debate Round No. 1
Pricetag

Con

I will start off by saying that your definition of fascism is a very broad one and by your definition I think that the great majority of the world could be painted as fascists. However, this defies all logic. There is a reason that there is a distinction between fascism, democracy, republic, communist, socialist, anarchist, and minarchist forms of government. I think instead we should use a more objective definition of fascism. Here is how the American Heritage Dictionary defines fascism:

Fascism-
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Let's notice the distinction. A fascist government is one that is under the authority of a dictator. Again let's get a good definition of dictator. Here is how WordNet defines a dictator:

dictator-
noun
2. a ruler who is unconstrained by law

As we all well know the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not allow our President to do whatever he wants unconstrained by law. There were protests of Lincoln's actions in the North and no one stopped them (the Copperheads are a good example). There were elections and the democratic process continued under the Presidency of both leaders. In that way I say that they were not dictators and thus not fascists. However, let's look on now to your other claims.

"1. A political ideology that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state: Lincoln, the Whigs, and later the Republicans, clearly believed this. They wanted high protectionist tariffs to subsidize internal improvements for the alleged "common good." Of course, the real purpose was to aggrandize themselves as the ruling party, but so sick is the fascist mind that it thinks this is for the "common good." The interests of the central state were exalted above the individual states and their citizens under Lincoln."

First of all, how do you propose a nation builds up its own industry without tariffs. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that tariffs did not work for the common good, they clearly did. I would like to see one example of a superpower or even an industrialized nation who has never used tariffs or other measures to build up their own industry against the competing nations. Again I say those who work for the betterment of society are not fascists. There is a distinction that a fascist must ignore all law and do whatever he/she wants. This is clearly not the case of Lincoln as he was his actions were approved by Congress, the Courts, and the democratic process of elections.

"FDR's New Deal was clearly the same idea. Individual liberties mattered nothing -- what mattered was the supposed "common good" and the preservation of the centralized state."

The New Deal programs raised taxes, true. But juxtapose that fact to the fact that the country was picked up out of a crushing depression and came out as the richest nation in the world with the same liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and really you have nothing to squabble about. Again FDR was not unconstrained by the Law and his actions were also held up by the Congress, the Courts, and the democratic process of elections. Therefore he is not a fascist.

"2. Authoritarianism: Lincoln imprisoned political opponents without charges. He ordered newspaper printing presses destroyed and editors jailed. It was a crime to criticize Lincoln. FDR, for his part, was also authoritarian. When the Supreme Court ruled elements of the New Deal unconstitutional, he threatened to "pack the court" with new members who were favorable to his fascist ideology. How is this not authoritarian? How is ordering the internment of Japanese American citizens not authoritarian or fascist? It clearly is."

According to the Constitution "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" (Article 1, Section 9). Under Lincoln there was obvious a rebellion going on; therefore, he was justified under the law in his actions. Trust me though, I don't like that part of the Constitution either; however, the law is the law and he did work inside of it in this case; therefore, he is not a fascist. In reference to FDR, "Congress has various means at its disposal to impose a degree of control over the courts, including impeachment of justices, limiting court jurisdiction, and altering the number of Supreme Court justices." (http://www.cnsnews.com...). Again this is not a law that I am particularly fond of but it is the law that the Congress can expand the number of the courts to break what they see to be an obstacle to the welfare of the nation. I'm not saying it's right, but it is the law and to suggest that the threat by him makes him a fascist is ludicrous because obviously he is still working inside the law. Also the case of the internment camps is a great argument for my side because it shows that he conceded when he was proven wrong, thus making him not a fascist.

"3. National unity: Clearly, this was Lincoln's goal -- "preserving the Union." In reality, he destroyed the original intent of the Union, which was voluntary confederation. FDR was also a grand centralizer and enemy of states' rights."

Is it so wrong to preserve the Union? I thought that was the point of the Constitution after the complete failure of the Articles of Confederacy. The point of making a stronger federal government to protect and provide for the welfare of the STATE of America, not the Confederate States of America. Show me that FDR was what you claim he is. I have seen no proof that he centralized power.

"4. Lincoln and FDR were both adamantly opposed to laissez-faire capitalism. Lincoln wanted high taxes, protectionism, a central bank controlled by the government issuing fiat money, and corporate welfare for "internal improvements." You can't get any more anticapitalist than that. FDR was almost as bad -- he created tons of new bureaucracies, regulations, and planning boards that regimented and regulated every aspect of private business. He also instituted price and wage controls, as is characteristic of fascism."

I don't see how wanting to balance and build the economy makes you a fascist. Their steps if anything expanded our freedom to a better standard of living, but they were clearly not dictators and only moved to grow the economy not control it completely as a fascist would.

"5. Managed currency: Lincoln shared the Hamiltonian/Whig dream of a national bank issuing fiat money. He unconstitutionally printed greenbacks and forced people to accept them under unconstitutional legal-tender laws. FDR suspended gold convertibility and confiscated the gold of private citizens. How much more fascist can you get?"

The constitution says that the government may not take your property without just compensation. By taking the gold and replacing it with just as valuable paper money FDR committed no crime. He again worked inside the law and therefore is not a fascist.

"'Fascist' is not an empty slur. It means something. Not only were Lincoln and FDR fascists, but virtually every member of Congress from both parties today is, too. They (almost) all support the things that are outlined above, to one degree or another."

This just works for me, because you seem to not be able to comprehend the difference between creating a safety net for society (Lincoln and FDR/democracy) and taking complete control of all facets of society with complete disregard for the law (fascists). The refusal to see these distinctions has caused the word to become an empty slur. Again I will reiterate both Lincoln and FDR worked inside the law and the Constitution in their actions and therefore cannot be logically seen as fascists.
clsmooth

Pro

You just made the debate a lot easier for me.

"Fascism: A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

Lincoln and FDR fit the bill entirely. Both were dictators unconstrained by law, and any student of history would know this. There are even books on Lincoln that CELEBRATE him as a "benevolent dictator." Every historian knows that both Lincoln and FDR were entirely unrestrained by the Constitution and violated it on a daily basis. Your education failed you, my friend.

You say no one stopped protests against Lincoln. ARE YOU JOKING? Lincoln ordered the destruction of hundreds of northern newspapers and had their editors jailed without charges. It was a crime to speak out against Lincoln in the North. He jailed the entire Maryland legislature before they could take office, and held them for the duration of the war.

Please tell me this is some kind of joke.

FDR also silenced dissent by centralizing economic decision-making and refusing to hire or grant permits to people who didn't vote for him. More blatantly, FDR was a dictator because he totally aggrandized the executive branch, beyond even what Lincoln was able to do. When the Supreme Court threatened to stand in his way, he fired back that he would "pack the court" with enough pro-fascism judges to make sure his unconstitutional policies were allowed to pass. That's a dictator!

How does a nation build up its own industry without tariffs? Through free-market economics. Duh. Ever heard of Adam Smith and WEALTH OF NATIONS? There is not even one modern economist who is for protectionism. Only idiotic socialist political "scientists" and uneducated dolts support tariffs. You are an advocate for central planning, a hallmark of fascism.

Wow, the ignorance is overwhelming. You think FDR and the New Deal got us OUT of the Great Depression? I don't even know what to say to that, it's so absurd. Everyone knows that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression, and that we weren't out of it until after WWII, when there was massive wealth redistribution from Europe to the U.S., as part of the rebuilding efforts. The New Deal prolonged the Great Depression, and the vast majority of economists share that view today.

You make constitutional arguments for actions by Lincoln and FDR that you agree were heinous. I would say that just because a power is (allegedly) within the Constitution, it doesn't mean that to exercise it to its fullest degree is not fascistic. Imagine a 100% tariff or a 200% excise tax on food. These would both be constitutional, but horribly authoritarian.

Under the Original Intent of the Constitution, membership to the Union is voluntary. Madison and Jefferson agreed. There were threats of secession early in our history, but never any counter-threats of invasion. Certain states, including Virginia, specifically reserved the right to secede when they ratified the Constitution. But regardless, secession is a right under the 9th and 10th amendments, because any power not prohibited to the states is thus reserved to the states or the people, and secession is not prohibited.

What's wrong with unity? Nothing, it it's voluntary. But America was founded on the principle of individual liberty, not "unity."

You don't see how controlling the economy makes you a fascist? BECAUSE THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT IT MEANS. You're essentially saying, "I don't know how performing an abortion makes you an abortionist." Lincoln and FDR were both hardcore fascist anticaptialists. You don't even put up a defense, you just concede the point.

The Constitution does not permit the confiscation of gold. That's not for a "public purpose" like roads. And replacing it with worthless paper money is not just compensation. The Constitution says only gold and silver can be legal tender!

Lincoln and FDR absolutely disregarded the law and the Original Intent. If it walks like a fascist and quacks like a fascist, it's a freaking fascist!
Debate Round No. 2
Pricetag

Con

You said:

"Both were dictators unconstrained by law...There are even books on Lincoln that CELEBRATE him as a "benevolent dictator." Every historian knows that both Lincoln and FDR were entirely unrestrained by the Constitution and violated it on a daily basis.

I disagree. It is obvious that they were constrained by the law because as I have already demonstrated they worked inside the law and their actions, on the whole, and their actions were upheld by the courts. When their actions were overturned by the courts they conceded that they were wrong and stopped that action. This clearly shows that they abided by the law and hence were not fascists.

"You say no one stopped protests against Lincoln...Lincoln ordered the destruction of hundreds of northern newspapers and had their editors jailed without charges. It was a crime to speak out against Lincoln in the North. He jailed the entire Maryland legislature before they could take office, and held them for the duration of the war."

Show me a credible source for this allegation. I have studied the Civil War intently and I have never come across such a claim. He did jail a few newspaper editors; however, those were charged with inciting a rebellion which under the circumstances were valid charges.

"FDR also silenced dissent by centralizing economic decision-making and refusing to hire or grant permits to people who didn't vote for him."

Again show me a credible source backing this claim up. Even if you can prove this, that isn't an unusual action. The "spoils system" is a trademark of American politics.

"FDR was a dictator because he totally aggrandized the executive branch, beyond even what Lincoln was able to do. When the Supreme Court threatened to stand in his way, he fired back that he would "pack the court" with enough pro-fascism judges to make sure his unconstitutional policies were allowed to pass. That's a dictator!"

Calm down. Reread what I said. A dictator works outside of the law. What Lincoln and FDR did was inside of the law because the Constitution allows the other branches to raise the number of judges in the court. That's the law. They followed the law and worked inside of it thus making them not fascists. Again there is a difference between being "pro-fascist" and believing in Keynesian economics or a non-free market philosophy. It's not all or nothing as you portray it to be.

"How does a nation build up its own industry without tariffs? Through free-market economics. Duh. Ever heard of Adam Smith and WEALTH OF NATIONS? There is not even one modern economist who is for protectionism. Only idiotic socialist political "scientists" and uneducated dolts support tariffs. You are an advocate for central planning, a hallmark of fascism."

Again relax, this is just a debate, no need to get all worked up. I have heard of Adam Smith, he is as one economist recently put it the man who built the foundation of the house that we are now being foreclosed upon. I can't see how one can look at the modern market with a crash every 5 to 10 years and say that it's working. There are better ways and we should be open to the idea of them. China for one has a 25% tariff and their economy is probably going to surpass ours in a short time. Since you called my personal beliefs into question I will respond. I am for the government regulating and boosting the economy to ensure stability, does that make me a fascist?

"Wow, the ignorance is overwhelming. You think FDR and the New Deal got us OUT of the Great Depression? I don't even know what to say to that, it's so absurd. Everyone knows that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression, and that we weren't out of it until after WWII, when there was massive wealth redistribution from Europe to the U.S., as part of the rebuilding efforts. The New Deal prolonged the Great Depression, and the vast majority of economists share that view today."

While it didn't cure the problem completely "[t]he New Deal helped people to survive the depression. Unemployment was reduced, but remained high through the 1930s. Farm income rose from a low of $1.9 billion in 1932 to $4.2 billion in 1940." (http://encarta.msn.com...). It was mostly the total war that helped lift the economy out of the Great Depression ultimately; however the New Deal lessened the brunt of the crisis for tens of millions of people.

"You make constitutional arguments for actions by Lincoln and FDR that you agree were heinous. I would say that just because a power is (allegedly) within the Constitution, it doesn't mean that to exercise it to its fullest degree is not fascistic. Imagine a 100% tariff or a 200% excise tax on food. These would both be constitutional, but horribly authoritarian."

You're right those would truly be horrible, because they are completely unnecessary and would hurt America as a whole. However, Lincoln's and FDR's policies helped lift the nation out of tragedy and put them on a new more prosperous path.

"Under the Original Intent of the Constitution, membership to the Union is voluntary. Madison and Jefferson agreed. There were threats of secession early in our history, but never any counter-threats of invasion. Certain states, including Virginia, specifically reserved the right to secede when they ratified the Constitution. But regardless, secession is a right under the 9th and 10th amendments, because any power not prohibited to the states is thus reserved to the states or the people, and secession is not prohibited."

I disagree. You as a strict constructionist should see that it is not legal for a state to succeed from the Union. "Article VII sets out the provision for original ratification, and that Article IV empowers Congress to admit new States, but that no provision of the Constitution authorizes a state to leave the Union. The juxtaposition of what the Constitution says about states entering the Union and what it does not say about them leaving, indicates that the door to the Union swings in but not out." (http://writ.news.findlaw.com...).

"You don't see how controlling the economy makes you a fascist? BECAUSE THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT IT MEANS. You're essentially saying, "I don't know how performing an abortion makes you an abortionist." Lincoln and FDR were both hardcore fascist anticaptialists. You don't even put up a defense, you just concede the point."

What I say is that you are too broad in what you distinguish as "fascist". As I have shown before there is a specific definition for a fascist marking a fascist government as one ruled by a dictator. Just because a leader practices protectionism or tries to limit the bad effects of business does not make them a fascist. It makes them a responsible leader who looks out for society as a whole.

"The Constitution does not permit the confiscation of gold. That's not for a "public purpose" like roads. And replacing it with worthless paper money is not just compensation. The Constitution says only gold and silver can be legal tender!"

Again relax, I'm not attacking you, this is just a debate. Gold is just as worthless as paper. All forms of currency depend on our confidence in their value, none have intrinsic value. The need to have a more inflated currency was for a public purpose namely allowing debtors to pay off their debts more easily. The Constitution says that Congress may coin money but where does it say that only gold and silver can be legal tender? That makes no sense seeing as how the states had already been printing money for years.

My opponent seems unable to see the necessary distinctions between fascism and other forms of government. Also the Original Intent was to create a balance between fed and the states not all in either direction. Lincoln and FDR either worked inside of the law or conceded when they were wrong, this means that they were not fascists.
clsmooth

Pro

You say Lincoln acted within the law. But where in the Constitution is the authority granted a president to shut down newspapers and jail editors who disagree with him?

You ask for a credible source that Lincoln shut down newspapers and jailed editors. See here: http://www.csulb.edu... for an academic source. This is a widely known fact, and frankly, you should be embarassed that you're unaware of this. Any serious book on Lincoln says this, though most of his worshipful "historians" make excuses and downplay his tyranny.

You concede that FDR was a spoilsist, but make the excuse that "everybody does it." Yes, but when the government is involved in more activities (as with the New Deal), the opportunity for spoils is that much larger.

Lincoln and FDR did NOT work within the law. THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS ORIGINAL INTENT IS THE LAW, and they abrogated that more than any other dictators who have ascended to the office.

Adam Smith has LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO with the financial ruin we find ourselves in, and LINCOLN DOES. Adam Smith was not for fiat-money central banking, but Lincoln was. Adam Smith was not for a gigantic, burdensome welfare state, but FDR was. Blaming the coming great depression on Smith is just as absurd this time as it was in 1929.

You take a non-inflation adjusted look at one sector of the economy and say that FDR's Fascist New Deal helped the entire economy. How absurd! Redirecting productive wealth to worthless agricultural endeavors, confiscating the people's gold and revaluing it versus the dollar, and yeah, farm output can be improved. Unemployment? Obviously, hiring one man to dig a ditch and another to fill it reduces unemployment. It also redistributes wealth in an uneconomical fashion, wherein no new wealth is created.

Lincoln and FDR did not lift the nation out of tragedy. Lincoln caused the tragedy and killed 650,000 Americans in the process. FDR worsened the tragedy started by Hoover's socialistic precursor to the New Deal, and then paved the way for Truman to mass murder Japanese civilians.

Your fascist interpretation of the Constitution is intolerable. You don't understand: THERE NEED NOT BE A PROVISION FOR SECESSION SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION -- ALL RIGHTS NOT SPECIFICALLY DENIED THE STATES ARE RETAINED BY THE STATES.

Fascism = big government and big business colluding to control the economy. That is what it means and your spin cannot change the meaning of the word.

Not only were Lincoln and FDR Arch-Fascists, but so is my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Whatever! A minority Northern cabal seized the reigns of government, conscripted an army paid through fiat money, shut down newspapers, and invaded the other half of the country to get their way. "All branches" of government were not in support because the legislative branch was cut in half. You are making the neocon/fascist argument that might makes right.

If "all branches of government" supported mass executions of homosexuals tomorrow, would that make it constitutional and right? When a tiny minority cabal can seize a bare majority of political power and use brute force to push through its agenda (while an entire half of the country has disassociated itself from the dictatorship), that is NOT republicanism in action -- it is fascist dictatorship.

WTF is wrong with you? Burr was acquitted. In your perverted statist mind judges are "always right" -- except when they make a decision that doesn't conform to your ideological world view. The charges against Burr were politically motivated by fascists who lost their fuhrer to his pistol.

Brown was probably insane, but he fought to liberate slaves. How is it that he can be villifed and yet Lincoln deified? Lincoln was just as much of a butcher but on a much larger scale -- 650,000 Americans. Adjusting for population, this is the equivalent of several million Americans today. And his purpose, unlike Brown's, was NOT to liberate the slaves, but rather to make slaves of everyone, maintain and reinforce white supremacy, and deport blacks to Africa.
Posted by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
Lincoln was elected and his actions (although controversial) were upheld by all branches of government.

Burr conspired to takeover part of the U.S. by force. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

I'll agree with you on that claim, although I don't think that John Brown was justified either as he killed mercilessly and butchered his victims.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Lincoln DID overthrow the U.S. government and WAS guilty of treason.

Burr was ACCUSED of treason by partisan federalists mad that he killed their god in a consensual duel. He was ACQUITTED. After some years away, he returned to New York where he lived unmolested. The charges were clearly baseless.

Oh, and one of the things he was accused of -- stealing land from Mexico -- our own government would be guilty of just a few short years later. This is like the neocons and liberals vilifying John Brown. The only difference is Burr didn't do anything at all.
Posted by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
Well Aaron Burr also tried to overthrow the U.S. government and narrowly escaped prosecution for treason. I don't think he's quite a reliable source.
Posted by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
I will, not right now, but later.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Read through this article if you have time. It will better enlighten you of my perspective (if you're interested): http://www.lewrockwell.com...
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
You've never heard harsh criticism of Hamilton?

See Aaron Burr for a real critic!
Posted by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
I was just saying that I've never heard that harsh of a summary of Hamilton. All the textbooks I've read have said that Hamilton originally thought we needed a king but ultimately just focused on uniting the Union with policies of a national bank, taking control of the debt and having a national debt. Having protectionist tariffs, having a national debt, and having other various revenue taxes. They never talked about his hatred of the poor or those other things mentioned, but they are very possibly true. Anyway, I still say the Original Intent was a compromise between a strong federal government and state's rights. That is why they added in the "necessary and proper clause" because they foresaw times where they might have to go against state's rights in order to protect the Union from tragedy.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
What part of what I'm saying do you doubt the veracity of?

1. Lowercase-f "federalists" included both Madison and Hamilton. They argued for adoption of the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. Jefferson was away at the time -- it would have been interesting had he been here! http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. Capital-F "Federalists" were the centralizers, led by Hamilton, after the adoption of the Constitution. Hamilton made arguments for the Constitution and said he believed in states rights, etc., but then once he was in power, they sought out to abuse and abrogate the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org...

4.Hamilton wanted a freaking king for this nation. http://en.wikipedia.org...

5. He wanted standing armies, heavy taxation, and empire. http://en.wikipedia.org...

6. He hated the poor, and targeted them in the tax act that led to the Whiskey Rebellion. http://en.wikipedia.org...

7. He was the original neocon. http://www.lewrockwell.com...

What about Washington? He was a general, not a philosophe. I only count him among the better presidents because there have been so many truly horrid ones. From a philosophy-of-government perspective, though, he is not in line with the greats: Jefferson, Madison, Cleveland, etc.
Posted by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
Will if that's true than I've read a very biased view of him in textbooks. However, what about Washington he was at the convention and although he never sided with a party he leaned to the Federalists approving of the central bank.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
PricetagclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by 08tsuchiyar 9 years ago
08tsuchiyar
PricetagclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by obama0805 9 years ago
obama0805
PricetagclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by thepinksquirrel 9 years ago
thepinksquirrel
PricetagclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Aagon 9 years ago
Aagon
PricetagclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by captgeech 9 years ago
captgeech
PricetagclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
PricetagclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Rinaldanator 9 years ago
Rinaldanator
PricetagclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
PricetagclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
PricetagclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30