[jsalcedo]

My first choice Would be Teddy Roosevelt.

I'm interested to see what some of the other choices would be.

[AZTOY]

GEORGE WASHINGTON:D

[MrAcheson]

Jefferson has a pretty good record. TR was pretty big government for a republican, I doubt most of the libertarians on the board would approve of that.

[jdege]

TR was a Progressive - all in favor of government regulation and oversight.

It was the Progressive Movement that destroyed this country.

[DigitalWarrior]

Jefferson.

[cslinger]

Jefferson or Andrew Jackson. Jackson was a good ole' boy to the core.

[Dorrin79]

Jefferson

gotta love minarchist presidents

:D

[MicroBalrog]

TR was a Progressive - all in favor of government regulation and oversight

And? I'm a Progressive.

I oppose gun control and the Drug War.

But I do support welfare and public education.

I'd surely make a better President than Clinton:) .

[Standing Wolf]

Thomas Jefferson.

[hoppinglark]

Alexander Hope
who served from 2008 to 2016......
LOL...
Maybe it was written on an 8th grade reading level to be for the masses but man HOPE is a good book!

[Lone_Gunman]

TR certainly supported "big government", and the concept that government could solve problems that the private sector, and individuals, could not.

He lived in a time when personal responsibility still existed. He certainly supported gun ownership.

Now whether his support for gun ownership would still exist in today's society is uncertain to me. He lived in a time when a man was accountable for his actions.

Today, if someone shoots up a school, its because his mama breast fed him too long, or he potty trained too late, or he played to many video games. Its never the fault of the person misbehaving.

So, TR may well be less than conservative on the gun issue in todays society. He may have seen this as a need for government to step in and save the little man from himself.

[Roper]

Bill Clinton

[jsalcedo]

Bill Clinton


Old bill was always locked and loaded

[longeyes]

Fortunately we don't need to rely on a President for RKBA; it's
in the CONUS.

But, to respond, Jefferson will do until someone better comes along.

[Glock Glockler]

1) Jefferson
2) Jackson
3) Hoover, you really got to admire a guy with the guts to do nothing:)

Micro, maybe we can tango on a different thread, but how does supporting socialism make one 'progressive"? Seems more regressive to me.

[longeyes]

Today's "progressives" go well beyond welfare and public education.
Their goal is to eliminate difference, chance, and individual disparities.
If some are "unlucky," then the Government should play Fortune's guide.
What I see in the "progressive" spirit is a desire to tell me who I can
hire, fire, live next to, like, love, think well and ill of. In my
view it is a form of religious zealotry, professing to be idealism,
run amok.

[telomerase]

Jefferson... as long as Gallatin gets to be Fed Chairman!

[Joe Demko]

Jefferson didn't live up to his own ideals. I'd think a good bit better of Mr. yeoman-farmer-invented-the-folding-chair-POTUS if he hadn't also happened to be a slave owner. Make all the excuses for him you want, he held slaves in a time when his contemporaries had long since recognized it as evil.
As far as RKBA goes, most all the POTUSes up through the early 30's had little or nothing to say in the matter. It didn't become a federal issue until 1933 or so...

[Giant]

Harry S Truman. However he is dead. Dropped the bomb. Now that was a weapon! Really pro gun? Don't know. Did I mention he is long dead! That seems to be the problem with bringing back most of these folks. Many are dead and the rest will be shuffling off in a few years or so.

One can get a good idea of the term of past presidents by visiting their libraries. Wonder what the Clinton library will be like. Plenty of displays! The purse of Monica. A bust or two, a bronze... "Here we have a bronze memento of Mr. Clinton" "Quite striking as it were." "Walk this way" "The Vince Foster Memorial shoe display is next."

Giant

[HBK]

I'm thinking Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson. You can say Jefferson didn't live up to his own ideals if you want, but he was still a hell of a man.

[Mike Irwin]

None of them, if we're talking in very general "personal liberties" terms.

Every President has had his foibles.

Teddy Roosevelt? Made it possible to seize privately owned lands to establish the National Park System.

George Washington? Was a supporter of the Alien and Sedition Acts, even though he was out of office when they were passed.

Thomas Jefferson was an absolute piece of :cuss: as a human being.

As for Jefferson and slaves, however, even he was troubled by it. But not so troubled as to release his slaves during his lifetime. He also vowed to free his slaves in his will at his death, but only made provisions for a few of them to be freed. The rest were sold.

He did attempt to write anti-slavery language into the Declaration of Independence in the list of charges against King George, but the Southern Planters stripped it out, and only grudgingly agreed to its removal when the South threatened to sink the vote.

[Kharn]

From a purely gun-rights standpoint: any President from before ~1830. They all knew if they tried to take anyones guns away, they'd be strung up on the front lawn.

Kharn

[seeker_two]

John Adams....

Read McCullough's book...

[El Tejon]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the guy that wrote it: James Madison?:confused:

[stevelyn]

None of the past presidents. If given a choice I would bring back Daniel Webster and have him as president. His policies would have probably created conditions that would have averted the War of Northern Aggression.

[Mike Irwin]

"John Adams....

Read McCullough's book..."

I did read McCullough's book. And just about everything else that's been written about Adams.

Did you miss the part about the Alien & Sedition Acts?

[Chris Rhines]

Madison was an enthusiastic central-statist, Jefferson never came close to living up to his ideals (OTOH, at least he had ideals to live up to...) Washington used his conscript military to enforce tax collection in PA, for which he should have been strung up toot sweet.

Could we possibly bring back "None of the Above?"

- Chris

[Jim March]

Jackson was a horrific racist. Even worse than usual for the times.

Sigh. Jefferson had the best ideals.

[Tamara]

Calvin Coolidge.

What did he do?

Nothing. :)

[Moparmike]

Edited for ignorance:o .
Like others have said, at least Jefferson had ideals to live up to.

I would bring back me. Oh wait, I havent been president yet. Ooops.:rolleyes:

[MrAcheson]

Woodrow Wilson is the president responsible for the League of Nations crap. He invented the damn thing in his Fourteen Points, remember? Thank goodness Congress didn't go for that though.

[Tamara]

Coolidge???? The one man responsible for the whole League of Nations crap? Hell no.

Moparmike, that was Wilson.

Study your history; Coolidge was the guy who vetoed legislation left and right, scribbling "I see no constitutional authority for this law" under his signature.

:cool:



The Bill of Rights goes too far. It should stop right after "...and Congress shall make no law" -Anon.

[Moparmike]

Moparmike, that was Wilson.So edited. Danged brainfarts and senility. Seems to be striking earlier and ............(zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz)...who, what, where? Oh, yes. I remember back in '43 when ol' Red was in the belly of that -17, he said the funniest....(zzzzzzz)....earlier in my family. Odd.

[Glock Glockler]

Jefferson might have owned slaves and Jackson might have been a hardcore racist, which might be indicative of personal failures, but that has nothing to do with their presidency, and that what the question was about, no?

[Mike Irwin]

"Washington used his conscript military to enforce tax collection in PA"

Wrong.

Washington's force wasn't enforcing taxation, it was putting down the Whisky Rebellion. This isn't just a name, it broke out into actual rebellion and violence, with the rebels finally attacking a Federal tax collector and Federal troops and interfering with the mail service.

In Washington's words "the government could no longer remain a passive spectator of the contempt with which the laws were treated."

Washington was also enforcing the government's right to levy and collect taxes as specified in the Constitution.

It wasn't enforcing the collection of those taxes, only the ability of the government to levy and collect those taxes.

These troops also were NOT conscripts. They were volunteers who answered the call to service. In Eastern Pennsylvania, in fact, so many volunteered that something like 2/3rds had to be turned away.

It should also be noted that quite a few Quakers also joined the force.

[Mike Irwin]

No, Glocker, the question was which president would you bring back given their stance on RKBA and PERSONAL LIBERTY.

Jefferson failed at the outset.


Jackson is also absolute NO saint either, folks.

Anyone care to take a crack at explaining the events leading up to the Train of Tears?

In short, though, don't get a court ruling that you like? Ignore it and use the military power of the Federal government to enforce your personal will so that your land speculating buddies can get rich.

Oh yeah, Jackson would be a topper to bring back.

[Jim March]

In Jefferson's case, true, his personal issues had little bearing on his Presidency.

JACKSON though went to war based in *large* part because of his racism. Possibly more than once, I can't recall...but for sure, at least once (Indians).

If somebody were to go back in time, haul his butt forward and try and install him, I'd revolt. In a heartbeat.

[Mike Irwin]

Just like to remind a few people of something regarding our early Presidents...

Remember, that given the system established by these men, many of us here wouldn't have been able to vote -- wrong sex, wrong color, or wrong social class and no land to call your own.

When the early Presidents talked about the rights of free men, they didn't mean women, slaves, indians, or generally those who didn't own land.

They were talking about themselves -- the American Aristocracy.

Most of them were descended from European Aristocracy (George Washington, the Lees, Thomas Jefferson), but some were truly self-made men, like Benjamin Franklin and Roger Sherman, men of modest means who rose of their own abilities.

On the positive side, though, these American Aristocrats did at least allow for an open aristocracy (decidedly different from Britain or most of the rest of Europe).

Once you made it, you were, generally, a member in good standing, even if your money was new money, and your name a new name.

As for voting rights, it took many many years for the states to relax their laws on voting elegibility.

It wasn't until the 13th amendment was passed that universal MALE sufferage was theoretically in place, but it wasn't until 1920 that women got the vote.



Oh, and Woodrow Wilson?

He RE-segregated employment in the Federal Governemnt, and generally made it impossible for blacks to get into Federal civil service. The Federal government had been desegregated in the 1870s.

Some guy.

[Glock Glockler]

I think that this will devolve into hair splitting, but here goes:)

Mike,

Which President would we bring back? 'President' being the key word, yes? Their stances on a particular issue, in and of themselves, is irrelevant, but their stances as it relates to how they utilize the office of the Presidency is what's important. So I stand by my defense of Jefferson, as his personal dealings with slaves didn't impact his administration and he overall did a swell job in office. I don't give a crap what Bush really thinks and feels about guns and their legality, all that matters is what he does or doesnt do with his office.

Jim,

Yours and Mike's criticism of Jackson about ignoring the Supreme Court is legitimate, I just have a really big soft spot for him due to his breaking the National Bank. I think we can very much use that type of attitude right now, but it's unfortunate how many people don't have the slightest clue to how our monetary system functions.

[Chris Rhines]

Washington's force wasn't enforcing taxation, it was putting down the Whisky Rebellion. This isn't just a name, it broke out into actual rebellion and violence, with the rebels finally attacking a Federal tax collector and Federal troops and interfering with the mail service. Yes, I'm aware that the Whisky Rebellion was an actual rebellion, complete with the tar-and-feathering of tax collectors (who deserved exactly that.)

Washington was also enforcing the government's right to levy and collect taxes as specified in the Constitution.

It wasn't enforcing the collection of those taxes, only the ability of the government to levy and collect those taxes. There is absolutely no practical difference between the two.

Washington was wrong to attempt to levy taxes on Whisky production, and the Pensylvanian farmers were fully within their rights to forcibly resist those taxes.

- Chris

[Glock Glockler]

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the tax they were up in arms about an exise tax on booze that only applied to the Whiskey the ruffians in the boondocks were drinking and not on the high end stuff the Snooty urbanite blue-bloods were drinking?

[2dogs]

Bill Clinton- give him another chance.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

They're coming to take me away, haha, hehe, to the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time..................................:neener: :neener: :neener:

[jsalcedo]

Great history lesson.

I think Jefferson and Jackson are in the lead.

FWIW
Harry Truman was the most honest and straight foward presidents we have ever had.

Any nominations for U. S. Grant or Ronald Reagan?

[Joe Demko]

Any nominations for U. S. Grant or Ronald Reagan?

Hell,no!

[Zundfolge]

Actually bringing back Clinton might be a good idea.


At least then Republicans would FIGHT against gun control (and other freedom destroying things like the Patriot Act) instead of bending over for RINOs like Bush.


:banghead:

[Mike Irwin]

"Their stances on a particular issue, in and of themselves, is irrelevant, but their stances as it relates to how they utilize the office of the Presidency is what's important."

Hehehehe...

So, in other words, Glock, the life experiences of a man before he becomes President have absolutely no effect on the stances, or actions that he takes while in office.

In other words, every new president comes into office as like a Virgin, with no past whatsoever to influence him, or more importantly, no history that would influence anyone else...

BULL :cuss:

I belive it was Plutarch that said something to the effect of "each day of a man's life gives validity or makes of a lie of every day that came before."

[Mike Irwin]

"Washington was wrong to attempt to levy taxes on Whisky production"

It wasn't Washington who levied the taxes.

It was CONGRESS.

You're familiar with Congress.

You know, created by the Constitution, which also gave it the power to ENACT taxes, including excise taxes.

As for the excise tax, check Section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Washington, as President and Commander in Chief of the military, was obligated by the same Constitution to take action against those who were in open rebellion against the Constitutional authority of the government.

"the Pensylvanian farmers were fully within their rights to forcibly resist those taxes."

Only if they won and set up their own nation independent of the United States. Otherwise, it was simply an illegal rebellion and was, and should have been, treated as such.

And it folded faster than a house of cards when faced with the prospect of actually having to fight. Severe lack of stones.



Glock,

"If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the tax they were up in arms about an exise tax on booze that only applied to the Whiskey the ruffians in the boondocks were drinking and not on the high end stuff the Snooty urbanite blue-bloods were drinking?"

Sort of.

The tax was on the production/distillation of whisky -- anything made here in the United States, and including the rum distillieries in New England.

Most of the liquor drunk by the "blue-bloods" was imported, and at that time I believe subject to a different tax.

Brewed and fermented liquors, if not distilled, were not covered in the tax.

[Chris Rhines]

Mike -

You seem to think that I care about which branch of the government created/enacted/enforced said immoral and unethical tax. I don't. It doesn't matter whether the President, Congress, or the Great Ghu came up with the whisky taxes, or which piece of paper they use to justify them. It was still wrong, and the farmers were still right to resist it.

In addition, I don't blame the Whisky rebels for folding when they did. They were, what, seven or eight hundred local farmers and merchants, facing fifteen thousand government troops?

Washington's suppression of the Whisky Rebellion was the seed that grew into the modern welfare-warfare statism that we have today. In one fell swoop, our fledgling goverment of/by/and for the people established the monopoly on the use of force and the morality of its existence - pay up or die. A great victory for tyrannny.

Only if they won and set up their own nation independent of the United States. Otherwise, it was simply an illegal rebellion and was, and should have been, treated as such. This is interesting - would you think the same if the British had managed to put down the Colonial revolution (Yes, I know that's what the history books would have said. I don't care about that. I want to know if you have any opinion of the ethics of the fight, regardless of the outcome.)

- Chris

[Ian]

An unconstitutional law is has the same weight as a law never passed. The Whiskey Rebellion tax was in violation of the Constitution because it was not apportioned between the states. It had a small to negligible effect on anyone outside Pennsylvania. The farmers were under no responsibility to submit to the collection of that tax, just as we today would be under no responsibility to surrender firearms if the law required them to be confiscated.

At any rate, my vote for President would go to William Henry Harrison. He wasn't in office long enough to do anything at all, much less anything bad. :)

[seeker_two]

Did you miss the part about the Alien & Sedition Acts?

Good point, but I didn't get the impression that he was for the extent to which they were enforced. I think he worked hard to get them overturned in the end...

But it's been a year since I've read it.

[Mike Irwin]

"You seem to think that I care about which branch of the government created/enacted/enforced said immoral and unethical tax."

Given that the Constitution was adopted by the Representatives of the people, in state government, I think that's qoing quite far out on a limb.

The states, by the powers vested in them by their people, agreed that the Federal government had the right to levy and collect taxes for the working of the whole.

These farmers, being land owners, were very likely eligible to vote for those representatives.

This wasn't the case of a government 2,500 miles away passing taxes without the consent of the governed, which had been one of the big rallying cries of the Revolution.

It wasn't even close to that, Chris.

These self-same farmers were among the first to scream bloody murder for protection of troops in their clashes local indians.

And immoral and unethical? What, it was a tax to provide for the procurement of concubines for Federal officials and to fund a coffer for bribes? Those would be immoral and unethical.

Your chosen categorization is nothing more than hyperbole.



Ian,

"The Whiskey Rebellion tax was in violation of the Constitution because it was not apportioned between the states. It had a small to negligible effect on anyone outside Pennsylvania."

Incorrect.

Just WHERE did you get the idea that this was a Federal tax ONLY on Pennsylvania backwoods farmers?

It was NOT.

It was a NATIONALLY levied excise tax. Distillers nationwide had to pay the tax.

The tax was designated to help pay down the state debts resulting from the Revolution, which had been assumed by the Federal government under the Constitution.

I can't think of a tax that more apportioned that that.

[Glock Glockler]

Mike,

Where does the Constitution grant the Federal govt the authority to assume the debts of the states? Why can't the states pay their own debts like I pay my phone bill and you pay yours? The funny thing is that when that happened your own state of Virginia was far along into paying it's debt off, while Massachusetts had been slacking, so Virginia winds up paying their own debt as well as that of MA, pretty swell, huh?

What that accomplishes is bringing the "Federal" govt one step closer to being a National govt, a govt that would interact with the states only to one that bypassed the states and interacted directly with the people. That being the case, people all over the country should have rebelled by that unconstitutional act of the Feds.

Getting back to the Jefferson debate, I never said that a man's past had no influence on how he governs but rather that how he governs is the criteria by which we judge him regardless of his past.

[MeekandMild]

Let me stir up some s*** here guys. ;) I'm for bringing back President John Hanson. (http://www.marshallhall.org/hanson.html) Of course this would also mean bringing back the original Articles of confederation (http://www.constitutionfacts.com/abody3.shtml) but at least they would assure us of never having to suffer through another Clinton.

[Blain]

Adams or Jefferson.

[Ian]

I retract my vote for Harrison in favor of Hanson. :)

[Glock Glockler]

Amen, brothers! It's nice to see some folks recognize that the Constitution was a mistake and that a revised AoC would have done us much better.

Blain, you surprise me, Adams? He was a consolidationist that trampled on the 1st Article of the BoR with the Alien and Sedition Act.

[Bigjake]

jackson all the way, that man had balls.

[GinSlinger]

I back Tamara!

"The business of America is business."

"Now, gentlemen, if you will excuse me, I am going to take a nap."

Definitely the best president of the 20th cecntury, and possibly ever.

GinSlinger

[Cosmoline]

No question about it

[Minuteman]

I'd like to see America's fourth president, Richard Henry Lee, come back to life for his views on the owning and carrying of military arms by civilian citizens, although he served from 1784 to 1785 before the 2nd Amendment was written.

“To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...”
--Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
--Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169

Minuteman

[David Scott]

I find it amusing that some are willing to forgive Jefferson his slave-owning as a "personal" failing, having nothing to do with his presidency, and bring him back, but will never forgive Clinton for the personal failing of cheating on his wife. Whassup with that?

As for me, I Like Ike. Why has no one mentioned Dwight D. Eisenhower?

[The Rock]

Albert Gallatin or Lysander Spooner.

oops, wrong timeline, my mistake.

Honestly, I miss Bill Clinton. No, really.

TR

[AZLibertarian]

Man, you guys are a great crowd. Although my academic schooling is technical (physics), in my middle years, I've developed a taste for non-fiction--lately Presidential biographies. You guys are blowing me away with some of the detail you have at your fingertips.

I've read McCollough's John Adams and H.W. Brands' TR--The Last Romantic. I'd forgotten about Adams and the Alien and Seditions Act. My memory could be wrong, but I think he signed it reluctantly.

I had thought that I might like TR better than Adams, but after reading these two books, I've got conflicted feelings. TR was definitely a more interesting person than Adams. He'd be a much better guy to invite to dinner-- it would be fun to just listen to his roaming conversation. Adams was all business--cold and impersonal...no fun at all. Yet President Adams appreciated the limits of his office (A & S Act excepted), while President T. Roosevelt certainly worked the political machine to achieve his ends. Today many conservatives decry "activist judges" who invent powers not given to them, but TR was what I might call an "activist president". In many ways, I see GWB modelling his presidency on TR. As much as I may like him on a personal level and appreciate the boldness of some of his decisions, the way a President achieves his goals is as important as the goals themselves. As such, between the two, I'd say Adams was a better president.

Interesting that so far no one has mentioned GWB as a "best". Not surprising, but interesting.

Does anyone have any suggestions for readings on Jefferson and Madison?

BTW, although he wasn't a president, I recommend a biography of Ben Franklin--The First American by H.W. Brands.

[treeprof]

Coolidge.

And, he did do someting pro-firearms: he was one of the main motivating forces behind the founding of SAAMI, so that the firearms industry would be self-regulating with respect to setting standards for arms and ammunition, rather than having the feds do it for them and us.

[atek3]

I find it funny only one person on this thread is cheerleading for the modern central government :)
I'll have to second hanson.
A little bit of a threadjack, perhaps you might want to pm me the answer, but one of the failings of the system of the AoC was the fact that large states like new york and virginia were VERY protectionist, a huge impediment to economic growth. Supposing the AoC were amended as they were supposed to, how would you attempt to abolish tariffs at the state level without infringing upon their rights as sovereign entities?

atek3

[Glock Glockler]

atek,

The states would choose to enter into a de facto free trade agreement, so their rights are not being infringed upon, as they do so voluntarily. Their economies and our economy as a nation, stand to gain tremendously when goods and services are allowed to cross borders freely, which is why they surrender protectionist policies to the Federal govt as an arbitrator. Keep in mind that they would have also surrendered powers of foreign diplomacy and treaties, again with the Feds taking care of that.

An amended AoC would have been far better than the mess we got ourselves into.