How Libertarians Win Friends And Influence People With Their Positions on the Civil War - Page 3 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

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

...

Page 3 of 150

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 23 53 103

Last

Page 3 of 150

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 23 53 103

Last

11-29-2009 , 11:22 AM

#51

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

Read Lincoln's first inaugural address. It pretty much says it all.

11-29-2009 , 11:28 AM

#52

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borodog

Read Lincoln's first inaugural address. It pretty much says it all.

Oh, I've read it. Can you explain why the seceding states failed to mention the so-called "proximate cause" of their secession at all?

11-29-2009 , 11:37 AM

#53

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

Lincoln's first inaugural address

Quote:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Lincoln addresses whether or not he is a threat to the institution of slavery:

Quote:

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. 4
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.

He then gibbers for many paragraphs on his crank theory that the Union predates the States that comprise it in order to justify threatening violence to hold it together. And on what occasion should there be violence?

Quote:

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. 17

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

So there it is; pay the duties and imposts and there will be no bloodshed, violence, invasion or use of force against the people, and if there is, it's your fault for forcing me to us the power vested in me personally to shed your blood through violence, invasion and the use of force.

11-29-2009 , 11:38 AM

#54

Bedreviter

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,502

From Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech:

Quote:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.

From wiki:

Quote:

Historians today generally agree that economic conflicts were not a major cause of the war. While an economic basis to the sectional crisis was popular among the “Progressive school” of historians from the 1910s to the 1940s, few 'professional historians' now subscribe to this explanation.[28] According to economic historian Lee A. Craig, "In fact, numerous studies by economic historians over the past several decades reveal that economic conflict was not an inherent condition of North-South relations during the antebellum era and did not cause the Civil War."[29] When numerous groups tried at the last minute in 1860-61 to find a compromise to avert war, they did not turn to economic policies. The three major attempts at compromise, the Crittenden Compromise, the Corwin Amendment, and the Washington Peace Conference, addressed only the slavery related issues of fugitive slave laws, personal liberty laws, slavery in the territories, and interference with slavery within the existing slave states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins...ican_Civil_War

11-29-2009 , 11:41 AM

#55

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElliotR

Oh, I've read it. Can you explain why the seceding states failed to mention the so-called "proximate cause" of their secession at all?

The secession was not the war.

But I see where this is going; proximate cause of southern secession was slavery, proximate cause of the war was southern secession. Conceded. However, the point remains that Lincoln explicitly stated that the only reason he would wage war was to collect the loot.

11-29-2009 , 11:47 AM

#56

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

Bedriviter,

As you can probably imagine, I have about as much use for the academic consensus on the causes of the 1861 war was as I do for the academic consensus on the necessity of a central bank or a government.

11-29-2009 , 11:51 AM

#57

ianlippert

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 4,960

Mabey we need another Lincoln thread. Who cares if the civil war was over slavery? Who cares if LRC is racist? Who cares if Mises has racist writers? Its like am I going to stumble into a racist sentiment on Mises and go nuts and show up at the next Klan meeting. We should all act like adults and realise there is tons of nonsense that is spewed on the internet that is going to have little bearing on those that dont already believe it. People come to be racist almost entirely based on the culture they grow up on, not on silly things they read on the interwebs.

Whats important is what people say not who says it. I have no idea what people think they are accomplishing by bringing up possible charges of racism, but please dont turn this thread into some historical nitfest.

11-29-2009 , 11:54 AM

#58

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

They think they will get people to dismiss something or avoid looking at certain sources if they can taint them with charges of racism. This is the entire point.

11-29-2009 , 11:55 AM

#59

Not_In_My_Name

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 23,099

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianlippert

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think most of the issue is that it reflects very poorly on libertarianism as a whole, and casts libertarians in a bad light in the minds of non-libertarians. I don't care that Rockwell is a brainwashed Catholic, I do care that one of the most popular libertarian websites in the world has ******ed Christian bile spewed all over it. It's about perceptions.

11-29-2009 , 12:02 PM

#60

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

Noted white supremacist Walter E. Williams defends uberbigot Tom DiLorenzo on famous racistarian Lew Rockwell's hatesite regarding Our Lord and Savior Abraham Elizabeth Lincoln.

11-29-2009 , 12:04 PM

#61

ElliotR

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 30,029

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borodog

Getting from that statement to "tariffs were the proximate cause of the war" is pretty much the worst kind of spin imo. Lincoln's inaugral -- which, remember, took place in March and after the CSA was established -- basically said the following:

1) Yo Southerners, relax. I'm not going to take your slaves.

2) States cannot unilaterally secede. The acts purporting to do so are void and I do not recognized them.

3) That having been said, to keep things from getting out of hand I will tell you where I am drawing the line: don't interfere with government property or federal taxation. So long as you don't go there, then I won't appoint Northerners to federal posts in the south even if it means those posts go unfilled because no southerner wants them. And I'll keep delivering the mail, too.

4) So THINK about what you are doing. We can work things out.

To put a cherry on it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln

One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.

Point 2, above, resulted in the war. If you want to spin it pro-South you can say "Lincoln's refusal to recognize the rights of states to secede caused the war", and if you want to spin it pro-north you can say "the Southern states' attempts to secede caused the war", but to say that the proximate cause of the war was "tariffs" borders on the absurd.

11-29-2009 , 12:08 PM

#62

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

I already conceded that.

11-29-2009 , 12:10 PM

#63

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

Wilt Alston is another of the numerous bigotted, racist, hatemongering white supremacists that frequently post on LRC.

Wilt Alston:

11-29-2009 , 12:35 PM

#64

Sholar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borodog

They think they will get people to dismiss something or avoid looking at certain sources if they can taint them with charges of racism. This is the entire point.

The point is that places like Mieses and Rockwell -- maybe the two most posted "libertarian" sites from this forum, do not carefully distinguish between reasoned articles written by subject experts and inchoate anti-scientific/poorly reasoned/ignorant polemics.

If an organization wants to be taken seriously, it needs to edit itself.

That libertarian movements tend to attract a large number of followers with with a penchant for conspiracy theories and anti-scientific views (or racist beliefs) is a separate but related matter.

11-29-2009 , 12:35 PM

#65

Nielsio

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 23,398

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borodog

Wilt Alston is another of the numerous bigotted, racist, hatemongering white supremacists that frequently post on LRC.

Quote:

The Black Libertarian’s FAQ

[..]

Question # 2: Slavery wasn’t really that big a deal, was it?

Answer # 2: Well, I guess that depends upon whom you ask. (I promise all of you – someone actually asked that question in response to my article. You cannot make this stuff up!) Upon further review, what this respondent was actually saying was this.

"The main reasons for the South's secession from the U.S.A. [were] economic and political, rather than moral. The North sought to impose trade tariffs on foreign imports, on behalf of northern factories, and the South wanted to sell their cotton and tobacco to other countries in order to buy manufactured goods at lower prices than those of the North."

And you know what? This is absolutely correct. In fact, if one reads the Emancipation Proclamation carefully (particularly in context with Lincoln’s other writings) he gets the sneaking suspicion that Lincoln felt just a little put out that he had to even deal with the slavery issue. Slavery was basically a minor inconvenience that got in the way of an otherwise simple goal – making certain dishonest Abe’s rich mercantilist buddies could keep getting P-A-I-D at the expense of the unwashed masses south of the Mason Dixon. (Is it not always that same thing? Second verse same as the first.)

This whole discussion is (or should be) about freedom and how to fully enjoy it moving forward. It is most assuredly not a contest to conclusively determine which folks got the most raw deal.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/alston2.html

11-29-2009 , 12:43 PM

#66

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

I've read many hundreds of articles on both sites that are not "inchoate anti-scientific/poorly reasoned/ignorant polemics."

Also, I'm not sure you know what "inchoate" means.

Quote:

That libertarian movements tend to attract a large number of followers with with a penchant for conspiracy theories and anti-scientific views (or racist beliefs) is a separate but related matter.

Keep that smear machine going. It prevents you from actually having to address any actual arguments.

Last edited by Borodog; 11-29-2009 at 12:57 PM.

11-29-2009 , 01:15 PM

#67

Sholar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borodog

I've read many hundreds of articles on both sites that are not "inchoate anti-scientific/poorly reasoned/ignorant polemics."

I've ready many perfectly fine pieces on those sites as well, as is implied by my post.

Quote:

Also, I'm not sure you know what "inchoate" means.

You really want to play this game? What do you think it means?

Quote:

Keep that smear machine going. It prevents you from actually having to address any actual arguments.

What in the above was a smear? Reputation matters. If you mix libertarian philosophy with anti-scientific screeds don't be surprised when your deeply held and considered views of the one cast doubt on your deeply held and considered views on the other.

I don't even know what arguments you imagine I am failing to address here. Maybe try and read the posts that I write before replying in a tizzy.

11-29-2009 , 01:20 PM

#68

Nielsio

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 23,398

Quote:

From the publication of this book [The Unconstitutionality of Slavery] until 1861, [Lysander] Spooner actively campaigned against slavery.[11] He published subsequent pamphlets on Jury Nullification and other legal defenses for escaped slaves and offered his legal services, often free of charge, to fugitives.[12] In the late 1850s, copies of his book were distributed to members of Congress sparking some debate over their contents. Even Senator Albert Gallatin Brown of Mississippi, a slavery proponent, praised the argument's intellectual rigor and conceded it was the most formidable legal challenge he had seen from the abolitionists to date. In 1858, Spooner circulated a "Plan for the Abolition of Slavery,"[13] calling for the use of guerrilla warfare against slaveholders by black slaves and non-slaveholding free Southerners, with aid from Northern abolitionists. Spooner also participated in an aborted plot to free John Brown after his capture following the failed raid on Harper's Ferry, Virginia.

In 1860, Spooner was actively courted by William Seward to support the fledgling Republican Party.[citation needed] An admitted sympathizer with the Jeffersonian political philosophy, Spooner adamantly refused the request and soon became an outspoken abolitionist critic of the party. To Spooner, the Republicans were hypocrites for purporting to oppose slavery's expansion but refusing to take a strong, consistent moral stance against slavery itself.[14] Although Spooner had advocated the use of violence to abolish slavery, he denounced the Republicans' use of violence to prevent the Southern states from seceding during the American Civil War. He published several letters and pamphlets about the war, arguing that the Republican objective was not to eradicate slavery, but rather to preserve the Union by force. He blamed the bloodshed on Republican political leaders, such as Secretary of State William H. Seward and Senator Charles Sumner, who often spoke out against slavery but would not attack it on a constitutional basis, and who pursued military policies seen as vengeful and abusive.[15][16]

Although he denounced the institution of slavery, Spooner recognized the right of the Confederate States of America to secede as the manifestation of government by consent, a constitutional and legal principle fundamental to Spooner's philosophy; the Northern states, in contrast, were trying to deny the Southerners that right through military force.[17] He believed they were attempting to restore the Southern states to the Union, against the wishes of Southerners. He argued that the right of the states to secede derives from the natural right of slaves to be free.[18] This argument was unpopular in the North and in the South after the War began, as it conflicted with the official position of both governments.[19]

As a means to end slavery without bloodshed, Spooner offered compensated emancipation, a method tested and proven in those nations that had orchestrated the peaceful abolition of slavery.[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysande...r#Abolitionism

11-29-2009 , 01:35 PM

#69

Borodog

Enemy of the State

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 25,491

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

I've ready many perfectly fine pieces on those sites as well, as is implied by my post.

You really want to play this game? What do you think it means?

What in the above was a smear? Reputation matters. If you mix libertarian philosophy with anti-scientific screeds don't be surprised when your deeply held and considered views of the one cast doubt on your deeply held and considered views on the other.

I don't even know what arguments you imagine I am failing to address here. Maybe try and read the posts that I write before replying in a tizzy.

Touche. Tizzy retracted. Especially on the use of "inchoate."

11-29-2009 , 03:02 PM

#70

ianlippert

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 4,960

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

I'm not really a fan of Mises either. They are much more about quantity than quality. There is still a lot of good stuff on the site and they try to make as much of it as free as possible, this is what I like about mises. But its not like they are claiming to be a refereed journal or anything. It wouldnt be that hard to find crappy sites from any political belief, just because mises is a dominant source around here doesnt really mean its that important in the real world.

And even if there are a few authors connected to questionable beliefs, its not like when mises shows up in my feed that I'm reading 'The Daily Racist'. The seccessionist south is always going to have common cause with libertarianism, there's not much we can really do about it other than ignore the people that try and use cheap smear tactics.

Hopefully people will realise that crimes committed by a society a couple of hunderd years ago arent as important as crimes comitted by the society they currently live in.

11-29-2009 , 03:06 PM

#71

iron81

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 17,729

My impressions about the cause of the Civil War was that Lincoln waged the war because he wanted to keep the Confederacy in the Union, period. It didn't matter to him why the South seceeded.

That said, among the reasons the South seceeded, slavery was at the top of the list. IIRC, the ball got rolling on the Confederacy upon Lincoln's election on a platform hostile to slavery.

11-29-2009 , 03:09 PM

#72

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

Quote:

Originally Posted by iron81

IIRC, the ball got rolling on the Confederacy upon Lincoln's election on a platform hostile to slavery.

Actually the ball got rolling at the Democratic convention in the summer, when the southern wing of the party walked out, knowing full well that doing so would guarantee a Republican victory in the Election and thus force a Secession crisis.

11-29-2009 , 03:10 PM

#73

Nielsio

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 23,398

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianlippert

I'm not really a fan of Mises either. They are much more about quantity than quality.

Care to elaborate?

11-29-2009 , 04:30 PM

#74

ianlippert

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 4,960

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nielsio

Care to elaborate?

They are just very repetitive. I get it, I'm a libertarian, I dont need to read the same arguements over and over again. I could look up specific examples but I'm in the middle of an essay to give any real analysis. I've just noticed that i've read mises less and less over the years. Zerohedge, Mish, and the market ticker are more to my liking these days. I prefer people who are analyzing the raw data then people who are trying to push any particular paradigm.

I still think mises provides great value to the internet. I think they are a great site for people not familiar with the issues, and the amount of free material on the site is amazing and continues to grow.

11-29-2009 , 04:58 PM

#75

DrModern

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 6,592

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nielsio

I don't think I've ever seen anything remotely racist on Mises.org. I suggest you back up your claims.

If I recall correctly from an earlier conversation, you have a narrow, technical view of what qualifies as racism. I anticipate finding articles with racially insensitive overtones, you posting the Wikipedia definition of racism, and me rolling my eyes, so I'm going to suggest we drop this. But if you think I'm kidding, read Hoppe's argument that it is legitimate to shoot a person who trespasses on your property if he or she is of a certain race so long as that person had notice (e.g. a sign saying "all hispanics will be shot").

Quote:

If you haven't read or heard the work on Lincoln, how can you say they are being racially insensitive?

I think that some Mises authors I have read are sometimes racially insensitive? LDO?

Quote:

I have no idea what this means. If you hate something, then you have hatred for it.

When someone says they hate something, they sometimes don't literally mean they hate it ("feel intense and passionate dislike for") such that their feelings could be correctly characterized as "hatred." A lot of Americans, including yours truly, say "hate" when they really mean annoyance, distaste, etc. This was such an instance.

Page 3 of 150

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 23 53 103

Last

...

Page 3 of 150

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13 23 53 103

Last