So “my saying”? Do yourself a favour and learn to spell (and acquire the ability to comprehend what you read.) No, I am saying Lincoln was also a slaveowner, that not all Southerners were slaveowners, that Lincoln’s actions were themselves actions of enslavement.
It should be mind boggling, its a straw man argument. No one defends slavery, they defend states rights. They also offer a pragmatic argument that many died needlessly over something that could have been handled in a peaceful manner. However, that of course is if the war was about slavery which it was not, it was about states rights.
He said having slaves is the issue of the slave owners. What the hell is that imply other than saying it ok?
(a) We perhaps are the reason the LP is so small - I don’t know anyone on the Mises forums who supports it
(b) We are not blinded by hate toward the government, and the government is equivalent to a slave owner, so it is only a difference of hatred by degrees
(c) No-one on here has ever defended slave ownership, they have merely said that violently ending slavery is bad, as is slavery
(d) The government are a group of individuals
Are you a provocateur or something? Where did I say that?
so the states have a right to allow slavery? do states have a right to tax me too? do they have a right regulate my business too?
Uh, no, I said it’s a problem concerning them alone, and not innocent individuals. Meaning, only the criminals involved should be punished. And certainly not by criminals… and by peacable means if possible. Sorry if this offends your delicate sensibilities.
Honestly, i don’t know one luminary in the libertarian movement who argues that the south was “fighting” for any kind of noble cause. Instead the efforts of libertarians have been to support the principle of secession, and to debunk many of the myths surrounding lincoln and the Union cause. Dilorenzo’s two books on the civil war and lincoln have been about criticizing and attacking the lincoln cult, not about praising the Confederacy. Many of the revisionist efforts have been to explain how the war could have been avoided all together, instead of supporting one side in the fight (unlike the mainstream).
And where did I say tax slavery was better than chattel slavery?
punish people by peaceful means? wow that was fucking stupid.
No, my friend, you are “fucking stupid” and have earned yourself a ban. Bye.
You went nuts against people who suggested that Lincoln’s actions were unjustified due to him being a tax slave ‘caretaker’. That sort of implied it.
I think you have brought to much raw emotion to the table to be able to reasonably discuss this topic. I think this is one of those topics where people can’t help but do that.
You have responded to everyone by putting words in their mouths as if your aim from the start was to reveal them and supporters/defenders of slavery. You know damn well they are not.
I’m not going to be popular for saying this but the idea that the South was fighting for “States Rights” is a noble but misguided one. Alexander Stephens in the “Cornerstone Speech” (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76) pretty much admits that the Confederacy was founded on the propsotion that the Declaration of Independence was wrong and that all men aren’t created equal and that slavery is a natural order of things (this is why the Confederacy never invokes the Declaration of Independence’s belief that people have a right to revolt against a tyrannical government - otherwise, they’d be accepting the validity of the Declaration of the idea that all men are created equal and that they have inalienable rights including the right to their own life).
The Confederate Constitution is no better than the US Constitution either. It’s pretty much word for word of the US Constitution, except slavery was explicitly protected (and the Confederate government was not allowed to deny that right to slavery), and even left in some of the “big government” clauses of the original Constitution - the elastic clause to do things “necessary and proper” and the clause to “surpress insurrections” (which is what the North was doing in fighting the Civil War - surpressing a domestic insurrection) were left in. The only “States Rights” and limited government sort of things thrown in was banning trade protectionism, the president could only serve one term, and states could impeach federal judges. Here’s a good analysis of the two Constitutions here - http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm (yes, the guy is a cartoonist but he’s also a political science student).
The North wasn’t great but the South wasn’t any better. Tax slavery is bad but outright slavery isn’t really any better.
Whether or not their secession was based on principle is irrelevant. Secession is an individual right and therefore an association/group right, for any reason.
I wonder what the OP would have thought about Lysander Spooner? Probably would have blown his mind. Spooner was both a radical abolitionist and secessionist.
You do realize how obscure a figure VP Stephens was, right? The VP was not exactly considered an important role. Apologists for Lincoln and the Union idol god worshipers have made a big deal of this speech in modern times, but it wasnt considered notable then. As for your remarks about the Declaration of Independence, you seem to believe the modern myth that it is some kind of egalitarian manifesto. And you’re wrong. President Davis most certainly used its legacy - even called the secessions the ‘Second American Revolution’.
At the time, the necessary and proper clause hadnt been as misconstrued as it is today. The General Welfare clause was removed.
There is a difference between an insurrection and peaceful secession. LA Riots of 1992 - insurrection. South Carolina’s secession - peaceful.
He fails to make note of the signifigant changes to the way bills are written. The CS Constitution effectively bans rider bills, one of the main means of pork spending today.
Whether or not one supports the legacy of the Confederate States of America, you cannot deny that liberty was not met with its demise. If Hamilton and the Federalists betrayed the Revolution, Lincoln killed it once and for all.
I’m reading the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
specifically the part here:
"In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”"
This doesn’t make sense to me. If South Carolina thought the fugitive slave clause wasn’t being enforced, secession wouldn’t fix this at all. I think it was an excuse for terminating the state’s contract with the US Government. It’s a valid excuse, legally, but I dont think it has much to do with their reasons for seceeding.
Yeah, you know when I first looked into this awhile back it seems like larger issues were in play. In particular, S. Carolina and several other states seemed to have a paranoid belief that the Republicans were not just anti slavery, but completely anti-Southern. And if it was ‘all about slavery’, then all they had to do was just accept the Lincoln supported Corwin Amendment.
The North did too.
"Over time, slavery flourished in the Upper South and failed to do so in the North. But there were pockets of the North on the eve of the Revolution where slaves played key roles in the economic and social order: New York City and northern New Jersey, rural Pennsylvania, and the shipping towns of Connecticut and Rhode Island. Black populations in some places were much higher than they would be during the 19th century. More than 3,000 blacks lived in Rhode Island in 1748, amounting to 9.1 percent of the population; 4,600 blacks were in New Jersey in 1745, 7.5 percent of the population; and nearly 20,000 blacks lived in New York in 1771, 12.2 percent of the population.[4] "
And the Civil War was clearly about the right to secede, not about slavery.
That Abraham Lincoln was the worst president in U.S. history.
Innocent of what? Wanting to secede? No, they are guilty as hell of wanting to secede.
The Confederates were brutal statists, no doubt it. So was Saddam Hussein, along with every other foreign enemy the US has ever fought. That didn’t justify the war crimes, the police state, the genocide of innocent Iraqis, or the subjugation of everyone the region to the control of the US empire.
As I put it in an earlier post, what Abraham Lincoln attempted wasn’t much different from North Korea did in the Korean war. Only he succeeded.