Many paleo-Conservatives and paleo-Libertarians want to convince you that the south was fighting the good fight but I find it hard to believe. Yes Lincoln did violate the Constitution but the south had SLAVES!!!!!!!!!! To libertarian individual rights should be of up most importance and slavery is clearly a violation of those rights. Anyways what is your opinion on the Civil War? Is the South really all that innocent?
No, my friend, you are "fucking stupid" and have earned yourself a ban. Bye.
To darkness I condemn you...
edfchv1: And where did I say tax slavery was better than chattel slavery?
And where did I say tax slavery was better than chattel slavery?
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.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
champthom: 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).
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'.
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"
At the time, the necessary and proper clause hadnt been as misconstrued as it is today. The General Welfare clause was removed.
the clause to "surpress insurrections" (which is what the North was doing in fighting the Civil War - surpressing a domestic insurrection)
There is a difference between an insurrection and peaceful secession. LA Riots of 1992 - insurrection. South Carolina's secession - peaceful.
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).
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.
Semper Fidelis
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.
banned: 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.
edfchv1:Many paleo-Conservatives and paleo-Libertarians want to convince you that the south was fighting the good fight but I find it hard to believe. Yes Lincoln did violate the Constitution but the south had SLAVES!!!!!!!!!!
The North did too.
http://www.slavenorth.com/
"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] "
edfchv1:o libertarian individual rights should be of up most importance and slavery is clearly a violation of those rights.
And the Civil War was clearly about the right to secede, not about slavery.
edfchv1:Anyways what is your opinion on the Civil War?
That Abraham Lincoln was the worst president in U.S. history.
edfchv1:Is the South really all that innocent?
Innocent of what? Wanting to secede? No, they are guilty as hell of wanting to secede.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
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.
champthom:The Confederate Constitution is no better than the US Constitution...
There's a comparison here:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm
The Confederate Constitution is definitely not a libertarian charter, but to my reading appears very superior to the federal charter. Among other items, it eliminates the hopelessly ambiguous "general welfare" clause, prohibits special tariffs and other targeted taxation, and prohibits the importation of more slaves. The institution would have eventually died out, as it did in the Roman Empire, without the extreme government-engendered dystopia that continues to this day.
champthom:The North wasn't great but the South wasn't any better. Tax slavery is bad but outright slavery isn't really any better.
What do you think Lincoln was doing when he attacked the South over tariffs? Enforcing union slavery over people who wanted to peacefully secede.
Also, Lincoln supported slavery, and did not think blacks were equal either, he was determined to send them out of the country. ALSO the North also practiced slavery, and the Constitution protected the right to own slaves as well.
You could really do with some exposure to Tom DiLorenzo.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
liberty student:and the Constitution protected the right to own slaves as well.
And still does! As long as the government wants to do it.
champthom: The North wasn't great but the South wasn't any better. Tax slavery is bad but outright slavery isn't really any better.
I'm pretty sure the North conscripted many young men for the war as well. Isn't that basically outright slavery too? Maybe even worse, because they might be killed?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap