Oh, I know, I know.
One who believes in individual property rights and the non-agression principle, meaning one who believes it is wrong to harm another except in self-defense.
You shouldn’t put words in other peoples mouths. And who are you to say a culture has to go? If you aren’t part of the culture, it is none of your business.
The right to succeed is in the 10th amendment. Since no power has been given to the federal government to dissolve the union, only the states can. Since the emancipation proclamation attempts to free slaves in a foreign sovereign nation and supports the decree with military force, it is aggression.
There was no plan among Marylanders to abolish slavery - it was all about money and politics and punishing the states that hurt their business interests
Actually, Maryland had a process of gradual emancipation. New Jersey was the last northeastern state to adopt such a policy… in 1806. By 1860, half of the black population of Maryland had been emancipated. In 1864, before the end of the war, they had adopted a new article to their constitution (which had been in process for 2 or 3 years) outlawing slavery in the state of Maryland.
Maryland was actually the 4th state to ratify the 13th ammendment.
Here is quotes from the state legislatures on why they seceeded/joined the confederacy.
Here you can see that Alabama joined the confederacy of “slave holding states.”
How many non-Americans come from countries where any more than 600,000 people died in a war to protect corporate benefits provided by the government?
Well, going to war to protect corporate interests is a staple of american politics. We’re still doing it today. But, in this case, I have no problem protecting corporation’s interests of actually having to pay their employees.
There can be no aggression in defense of freedom. Slavery is aggression, the Civil War was a retaliatory measure. Now, if you want to say that 3rd parties cannot retaliate for aggression against other parties, that is a different argument; because that’s what the civil war was.
Who am I to say certain cultures have to go? A free thinking human that finds the institution of slavery disgusting. If it is aggression to detain/imprison/appropriate property of a slave holder, than call me aggressive cuz I’d do it in a heartbeat.
But, like I said, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. So I’ll not respond in this thread. If you want to start another, I’m all for it.
So only slaveowners were killed by the Union invasion? Are you sure about that?
I think the point is that the lives lost was not worth abolishing slavery. Sure eradicating human ownership is noble, but the motives behind the Civil War were not noble and for most libertarians, the death toll outweighed any good done by abolishing slavery.
Your post is incoherent. Wether cultures act is irrelevant to you expressing support for social engineering.
Less than five percent of those living in the CSA owned slaves. The Union didn’t even pretend to target people that were actually guilty of a crime. If I found an apartment complex with a hundred occupants (five of which were known murders) would I be justified in burning the building to the ground?
So only slaveowners were killed by the Union invasion? Are you sure about that?
Only slave owners and those who would defend them. If you have a slave I try to free, you try to stop me, and your friend helps, am I or am I not justified in using violence?
In my view I would.
I think the point is that the lives lost was not worth abolishing slavery. Sure eradicating human ownership is noble, but the motives behind the Civil War were not noble and for most libertarians, the death toll outweighed any good done by abolishing slavery
This I can understand, and in many ways I agree with you. It was bloody, and gruesome, and brother v brother. There were also many nefarious motives behind it. But the ultimate cause was slavery, to deny this is revisionist history. Southern culture had to go.
That last sentence I find deplorable tho. If one is not willing to die for freedom, what’s the point?
Your post is incoherent. Wether cultures act is irrelevant to you expressing support for social engineering
If saying I am willing to use violence to free slaves is “social engineering (tantamount to) Stalin,” just call me Uncle Joe
We live in a statist world; if the state supports a good cause, I’m ok with that (and yet still find the state ultimately unnecessary and destructive). There were many awful and corrupt things about it, but it’s not as if the private abolition movement was getting anything done.
Less than five percent of those living in the CSA owned slaves. The Union didn’t even pretend to target people that were actually guilty of a crime. If I found an apartment complex with a hundred occupants (five of which were known murders) would I be justified in burning the building to the ground?
There can be no aggression in defense of freedom. [Murder] is aggression; the [burning of the building] was a retaliatory me]asure.
+5 internetz, great reply. Really puts me in a trap
THe point is that the state’s secceded because of slavery, making those non-slave owners the defenders of slaves.
If there was an apt complex w 100 occupants (five known murders), and you attempted to take the murderers into custody using normal legal measures, yet the 95 other occupants defended them violently, would you not be justified in bringing violence back (burning it into the ground is clearly cruel and unusual, a concept I find great for legal systems)?
@ Epicurus, I don’t see what’s deplorable about it. You have to measure the losses vs. the benefits in any circumstance. What was it, 600,000 soldiers killed? Slavery was a practice that was on its way out, and people weren’t dying to free 600,000 slaves. If you’re asking me, I’d take slavery protected in the South that would have been eradicated within the next 20-30 years plus the 600,000 lives that were lost.
Using that logic, you’d make a great neocon. After all, if freedom is always worth fighting for, then I expect American troops to set foot in Sudan, North Korea, Mayanmar, etc. You have to consider the costs and benefits.
I’d take slavery protected in the South that would have been eradicated within the next 20-30 years plus the 600,000 lives that were lost
So.. what are the Ohio lottery numbers this week?
Using that logic, you’d make a great neocon. After all, if freedom is always worth fighting for, then I expect American troops to set foot in Sudan, North Korea, Mayanmar, etc. You have to consider the costs and benefits.
There are no benefits to slavery.
Freedom I never said it was “always” worth fighting for. I will agree that it did not have to be the way it was. But to say that I would support imperial expansion because I support fighting against oppression is ridiculous.
The point is I don’t support war, ever. But we live in a statist world. As such I very much support the individual soldiers and activists who would die in defense of freedom. It’s a hindsight, monday morning quarterback thing.
The civil war had much to do with northern supremacy, secession and tariffs, and very little to do with slavery.
The Union used slave labor (conscription) to fight its war to “preserve the union”. Don’t you think that fact is in tension with your anti-slavery “retaliatory measure” explanation of the civil war? Why shouldn’t we take Lincoln’s word when he said that:
Has this quote been taken out of context? If not, why would he say such a thing?
Lincoln was a criminal and a douche. So what? I don’t care if Lincoln wanted to destroy slavery, I care that millions of free people wanted to, and millions of slaves. I care that the confederacy openly admitted (despite what revisionists try to say) that they secceeded because of the north’s attempts to outlaw slavery.
Rich corporate northerners may have had their own justification, but that doesn’t mean the war wasn’t ultimately over slavery.
Wwhat arguments can you make that the war was over slavery? Because you want to believe it was?
Great piece at LRC today.
Check the thread before you accuse me of just asserting things. As you would tell me “you are ignorant of my position.”
I gave the ultimate evidence; the state legislators justifications for secession.
I didn’t say there were any benefits to slavery. I was saying there are two sides to the coin, the benefit is freedom for oppressed people and the cost is the bloodshed that didn’t have to happen.
You were more radical that that.
You said not that you condone the use of violence to free slaves.
But that you condone state violence to extinguish a culture.