I get motion sickness though. So bad that I can't even play first person shooters. So that, in and of itself, negates my ability to claim I am not a coward. But being a coward does not negate my ability to factually lay claim that others are in fact cowards. And to be perfectly honest I think some people itt are being cowards when it comes to their views on this issue.

Just by coincidence, I peeked into the politics thread while taking a break from Volume 2 of Shelby Foote's 3 volume set (1200 pages down, 1200 pages to go, JFC!)

The one thing that has struck me while reading volumes 1 and 2 is that most of the vile things each side was saying about the other were basically 90% true.

At bottom, the war was fought by the South to defend the proposition that blacks should not be free, and was fought by the north to assert the proposition that no one should be free. The search ITT for a good guy seems fruitless to me. other than the individual valor of combatants on both sides, I can't find any virtue in either side's policy.

Of course, it is possible that my new view of the war between the states is being unduly colored by recent events, too, so ymmv.

How Libertarians Win Friends And Influence People With Their Positions on the Civil War?

What is this referring to?

lol, yeah. Me being bitter. I just hate this country so effing much right now.



Three things coincided, really. The way the DOJ is handling Black friday, the shallowness of the republican field (not that I'm a republican, but it is just so depressing to think that one of those ass hats is going to be half the country's idea of the person most qualified to be president), and the level of vitriol and hatred in political discourse from both (all) sides.

It's a "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" type thing. I used to be a patriot, a proud veteran, and these days I'm feeling like I fought for the wrong side, lol.

And I pick up Shelby Foote and I'm reading it, and I'm thinking, "JFC, these guys were as scummy as Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich."

That's history. It makes you side with Gibbon, to a point.

The desire to make the moral equivalence between this and the institution of slavery in the South is exactly that:

WTF? I didn't do that at all. I DID draw a comparison asserting the moral equivalence between slavery in the south and the northern policy of forcible retention of the southern states.

But as for the current events, I was simply explaining to Fly what current events have influenced my views on that moral equivalence. I was drawing no parallel between the current events and the war. I was basically saying "these current events have me hating the US so effing much that it may very well be influencing my opinion on the moral equivalence of the US and CSA positions, and that when I read Shelby Foote now I see the civil war politicians (and the public for that matter) acting as scummy as they are today."

Hope I have clarified. If you were actually criticizing my claim of moral equivalence between the northern and southern policies, carry on, it's certainly fair game.

Yes.

But, in addition, the idea that those recent events are what shaped you to view the two actions as equal is odd. Specifically, I am criticizing this line of thinking:
I don't think those three things are "as scummy" as a war to preserve slavery--not even close.

What US stances and actions in the war have kept you from the 100 percent?

We agree on that. I still think you are criticizing things I have not said.

I think this is as clear as I can be on what I have been trying to say:

The policies being pursued by both sides during the civil war were really bad--different forms of deprivation of freedom, and way worse than any policies being pursued now.

The manner in which they are being pursued--through hypocrisy, violation of the rights of citizens,or at least callous disregard for their well-being, vitriolic attack on political opponents even within your own party, is essentially identical now and then.

The low quality and character of the people executing the policies is similar (with the exception I noted).

None. But conclusions drawn while potentially under the influence of strong emotions must necessarily be viewed with suspicion.

Do you accept the teleological goals of either combatant or government as worthwhile? If so, what alternate methods did they have than the ones they took? Granted, the South was politically inept by any interpretation of events, but what do you argue Lincoln to do to replace the suspension of Habeas corpus, conscription, blockade, idiot politician generals, propaganda, harsh Indian policies, and the transition to total war in 64?

Boom, combo breaker!

This is interesting. In my lifetime, depending on the evidence that I had then read and my sympathies at that stage of life, I have both agreed with and disagreed with the idea that the south was fighting for indpendence--for state's rights--as a separately articulable principle than the mere right to hold slaves.

One interesting thing I read in volume 1 of Foote was that the southern leadership knew full well that they could achieve instant recognition of their independence in Europe by the simple expedient of freeing the slaves. So, if true, and I have no reason to doubt Foote, A Missippian, or his sources, then this tells us unequivocally that the south was, at best, unwilling to sacrifice slavery to achieve independence, and at worst actually went to war for the sole and exclusive purpose of retaining slavery. So the south's TRUE goal was indefensible.

Similarly, I'm pretty sure that it was in his first inaugural in which Lincoln said unequivocally--I don't care about slavery. If abolishing it would preserve the union, I'd abolish it, and if retaining it would preserve the union I would retain it. So the north's ultimate goal at the outset of the war was simply the forcible retention of the southern states in the union, and this, to me, appears as indefensible as the southern desire to retain slavery by force.

So forget about the hypocritical means employed in furtherance of the goals--the goals of both sides were roughly equally immoral. i say roughly because the violence and cruelty of the slavery in the south tips the scales to it being a more indefensible policy than the north's forcible effort to deny the existence of an american right to choose whether to be an american.

All of that said, talking in detail about the means employed would take up more space than we have. But I never have seen any evidence that the suspension of habeas corpus was actually necessary, and all other presidents who have had newspaper editors and political opponents jailed have eventually come under the censure of historians. Yet Lincoln was justified? I have never had any evidence to support these moves as justified from a military standpoint.

As for total war specifically: In pursuit of a just cause, i would support it.

So you lean toward endorsing the right to dissolve political union anytime a plebiscite or legislative majority decides on that course of action?