That is true...we hadn't, yet, entered the Industrial Revolution, so the question of which President(s) should have been limited to those elected after that period began.

Agreed!

The only way to have your stance is to speculate "what if Washington, Jefferson, etc lived with the option of choosing slaves to do their plantation work or machines?"

He invented a device to lift a boat off a sandbar, sold them in his hardware store.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. 2+2=4; regard-
less of what the social standards of the time are.

I didn't know that Lincoln held a patent. What was
it on?

But at the time they lived, the conditions to make
such a strike necessary did not exist. More likely,
Galt would have done like Nat Taggart, and been
involved in his own private endeavors. (Or perhaps,
a Harriet Tubman-like abolitionist).

However...many (if not all) of our Founders were businessmen, in addition to being our leaders. Remember, this was the time before politicians made their offices their careers. Most times, when a politician left office, he had to go back to his old profession.

It seems ridiculous to think that Galt would have
tried to recruit any government official. Govern-
ment does not create business and move the coun-
try,as an industrialist like Rearden does. Possib-
ly he would have recruited a local deputy sheriff,
or somebody like that, but any higher up? I
don't think so.

I try not to use "Evil", unless I have proof of deliberate attempt at harm. Is not Obama in that category, the way he deliberately enslaves blacks via free (we pay for them) Obamaphones, and empty promises for his own power? Was slavery in fact really any worse than black families and neighborhoods being destroyed and the next generation enslaved to the entitlement ideology, and seeking to kill each other in the quest for things to which they feel entitled, from drugs to tennis shoes? Are not the people of socialist coutries really slaves to powerful dictators? Would Hillary not join them as the one who would take private property rights, parental rights, and Constitutional rights and make us all slaves? We get hung up on slavery in another era, but it has morphed into the present times unrecognized. Yet, why is no one condemned and judged for it in its current incarnation?

I didn't intend for the statement to be taken personally, Mike. The illustration would have been the same no matter who made the comment. If I slighted you I do apologize.

Actually, the cotton gin was invented in 1799, John Deere invented the first tractor in 1845 and the locomotive and steam power were available before the Civil War so technically, industrialization had begun...the impact and growth of it followed the war...
But yes, politicians don't have a real-world grasp except on the floating abstraction of money without ownership.

Read the Constitution. They set in place the end of slavery by forbidding the import of slaves twenty years in their future. In fact, Congress pass the required legislation at the beginning of that 20th year, not the end. They could not wait to end slavery, most of them. The committed slave-owners fought for another 40 years to hold on to their ill-gotten gains.

Article I, Section 9: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

I retract my reply. You opened the question: Of the 44 U.S. Presidents, whom would John Galt have invited to the Gulch? In that context, perhaps Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, or some others might have been induced to walk away from everything. The question of slavery would be independent of that. Leaving it all and going off into the wilderness would have erased the discussion.

In addition to leaving behind his slaves, Jefferson, in particular, would have left behind a pile of debts. He was a poor financial manager and often over-extended his credit. That would be different from Hank Rearden or Midas Mulligan. Jefferson was not a producer. Perhaps his bright ideas would been his admission ticket. But he was not alone in those.

As for the personal attack - that I am not the arbiter who decides for everyone, imposing my will on the group - that was both ingenuous and illogical. You offered the question. Anyone who answered would be the final judge by their own standards. One can argue the standards. One cannot argue the authority: it was granted in the question.

And I stand by my beliefs: they all knew that slavery was morally wrong. They all were making a pragmatic compromise. Moreover, slavery was not economically sustainable until after the invention of the cotton gin. Slavery was a social fact. It was not an economic imperative. I will have more to say about that in a separate post on that subject.

You're assuming that Lincoln and the rest had a clear view of what was happening to the country. Remember, industrialization didn't take off until after the civil war. I'm sure Lincoln, et al, couldn't see the big picture, certainly not the outcome of economies of scale. That's like expecting Sanders and Clinton (and even Trump) to understand that technology is shrinking economies of scale, which means that the jobs are NEVER coming back. The point is, NEVER trust a politician with your future.

Clearly, slaves and slave owners wouldn't be allowed in the Gulch. However, constantly berating those folks for an institution that they were born into (for THOUSANDS of years) is denigrating their achievement, viz., laying the groundwork for the ending of slavery. Just note that England and the US were the FIRST countries in HISTORY that outlawed slavery. England even backed up its commitment with the Royal Navy. Given that that was a complete, 180 degree turn from ALL of history makes their accomplishment nearly miraculous, in spite of their failings.

Grover Cleveland only president to uphold constitution

I think the safe bet would be the citizen-leaders. John Adams, Andrew Jackson (barely-educated frontier lawyer), Teddy Roosevelt (was a cowboy in North Dakota), Herbert Hoover (a mining engineer - employed 175,000 and specialized in buying & fixing failed mining companies), Lincoln (only president to hold a patent I believe), Harding was a newspaper entrepreneur, James Madison ("The problem to be solved is, not what form of government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect." ), William Harrison ("But I contend that the strongest of all governments is that which is most free.").

Teddy Roosevelt, after all, was actually the governor of New York, but he was added to the VP ticket to get him out of New York because the party didn't trust him to do their bidding... Seems to qualify to me. After the presidency, he went on to hunt big game in Africa, volunteered for the war, etc.

A natural icon is Reagan, but he was actually a strong member of the political machine prior to his presidency, and was the president of the screen actor's guild, etc. He was also heavily in the pocket of California business when governor (famously arguing that a packet of ketchup met the state's requirement for a piece of fruit in school lunches).

In a way, yes. But I do try to be as independent as possible. I trade with other people and try to just avoid contact with statist people and government as much as possible

Are you in that "lifeboat", too, term2?

Sometimes you never know until you get into the lifeboat with them

pretty easy to "believe". Just pick something and accept it as true. No thinking required

To not believe or have faith takes more belief that there is nothing than to believe what to me is the obvious.