I visited Jefferson's house last month. Was a real eye opener. I don't accept the idea there was no other way to run a plantation. If he freed his slaves most would have stayed right there for safety reasons.

I could make the same argument that I need slaves in my business to compete with Chinese workers and make more money.

There was no excuse for the civil war. The southern states just wanted OUT. The North had to beat them into submission and invade them. Our history is pretty sordid really. Obama is just one of a long line of ststists

In his day and prior people saw slavery as nothing more than a tool used to get work done. Running a plantation required labor. Slavery was labor.

It obvious because he "wrote all that stuff" that there was a personal compromise between his financial necessity and his personal philosophical leanings. Why should the people of his day be any different than those today.

Despite what many people here contend, and often insult, those who have objectivit idea can and do also believe in God; little difference.

I agree, it is hard to judge them by today's standards. What was going through their heads? Did you worry what would happen if they were all suddenly free with no means to support themselves and their families? Some would not have left.
Today, I have a friend I do not understand. She voted for Obama, saying "better a benevolent dictator" - crazy. But this white lady chose slavery. So too do so many of our college student liberals, reaching for socialism with both hands. I think AS showed us freedom and reason are hard, but some of us know it is worth the struggle. How will history record this era, will Obama be seen as a slave master?

My sentiments exactly.

At that particular place and time, there was no other way to run a plantation.
Mechanized farming would soon change the landscape of agriculture and make the Civil War unnecessary.

Too bad that Lincoln wasn't much too see things "big picture". We could use the sperm bank lost to that war.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Calvin Coolidge...and quite probably Ronald Regan. It's likely that these creatures are not even aware of the first 3.

My criteria for a good president would be that he is the type to do the right thing or nothing at all. I'd narrow it down to Washington, Reagan, Coolidge.
Finally, Washington would be the man.

Jefferson was deeply philosophically flawed with his hundreds of slaves so HE could have HIS plantation cheaply. To help with individual rights when it came to HIS finances

No one placed in a position of such power would ever shrug.
But after a president leaves office is an entirely different situation.
And once you've served as president, you are called "Mr. President" for life. Just sayin'.

But how could Jefferson wrote all that stuff about men being created equal, yet keep hundreds of slaves so HE could have a big plantation. Forget the constitution for the moment. This was HIS plantation. He could have freed them but allowed them to live and work on the plantation

My short list has George Washington and Calvin Coolidge. A case can be made for John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and perhaps Reagan.

Which? All of them, for at least the last century!

In the sense that you are asking NOT A ONE.

True, a great many were opposed by the economics of the matter, particularly in the agricultural South, prevented an all out ban in the Constitution (simply to achieve ratification).

I in no way condone slavery but to judge people back then by todays moral standards is just wrong.

Many people of those times were opposed to slavery on moral grounds, among them both the Jesuits and the Quakers. I am not issuing a mandate, although it is my view. Perhaps, I should have made that subjunctive or put it in quotes as from a hypothetical Galt.

Silly criteria.

Slavery at that time was a matter of economics more than oppression.Industrialism would have done away with slavery with little bloodshed.

Besides, who/what makes you the arbiter of who does or doesn't enter the Gulch? Aren't you assuming a leadership role, enslaving others in the Gulch by imposing your rules and criteria to act on behalf of the group?

Yes, I'm being difficult. But individuals, particularly in the Gulch, do not require others to make rules for them.

No, no slave-owners would be allowed in the Gulch. Free your slaves first, then we can talk about your role here...

Calvin Coolidge. He shrugged while in office.
"Although he did eventually name Secretary Hoover to a commission in charge of flood relief, Coolidge's lack of interest in federal flood control has been criticized.[122] Coolidge did not believe that personally visiting the region after the floods would accomplish anything, but it would be seen only as political grandstanding. He also did not want to incur the federal spending that flood control would require; he believed property owners should bear much of the cost.[123] " -- Wikipedia.

He also slept a lot while in office: 10 hours a night and two hours in the afternoon. That may have been a symptom of depression following the death of his son in 1924. -- http://www.doctorzebra.com/Prez/g30.htm

If thats the question the I would answer for sure Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. Perhaps, but I can't be sure, J.Q. Adams. and Jackson.

Absolutely no contemporary president - not even Reagan.

Thank you...I was afraid my question might not have been worded the best way it could have been. You are correct that the position of POTUS would indicate a desire to remain and lead...not to abandon mankind to his own devices.

I should simply have asked which President J.G. would have tried to save and left it at that.

I'd content any of the first 3-4 may have...but overall I think none would - each, save may be Washington, wanted to lead, to steer the nation for one reason or another. Shrug, to me, means seeing the creeping life draining futility of collectivism and wanting to escape to do your own thing; generally not something I would associate with a POTUS..