If I am following correctly then calling an argument by someone else racist can be addressing the point of their argument?

You are not following correctly, and on rereading my posts are pretty clear, so I'm going to assume you're playing some rhetorical game here. Please skip to the end.

Fly, do you think abolishing slavery in the South was the primary goal of the Civil War?

If it's "OMG YOU CAN'T CALL RACISTS RACIST", um, **** that.

If it's "OMG YOU CAN'T SAY THAT OTHER PEOPLE I AGREE WITH ON SOME ISSUES ARE RACISTS BECAUSE I WILL ASSUME THAT MEANS YOU ARE CALLING ME RACIST AND THATS MEAN"(see every thread about Tea Partiers), um, **** that too.

Nearly every anti-Lincoln argument written in this thread is derived from a small handful of neo-Confederate "scholars" who have somehow latched onto the libertarian movement. The overwhelming majority of those neo-Confederates are racists.

Dont be a nit

follow the thread, not just people you disagree with

The "Civil War" doesn't have goals. People have goals.

No game, I guess I am not following correctly where you use the term mutually exclusive?

But I am just trying to comment on your the fact that you use race as shield so that you don't have to address points. Are you aware of how prevalent that kind of stuff is in your posts?

Here's a point that you may not have caught on to (maybe you have, I don't know) - many fringe minority positions notionally attach themselves to libertarianism because *gasp* libertarians are defensive of minority positions because they are themselves in the minority position. The mistake you make is that you (intentionally or inadvertently) paint all libertarians with your racist brush.

You know what I wanted to ask. Was it the primary goal of the people in power in the North?

Case Closed- What points have I not addressed?

You're taking the normative and descriptive aspects, mixing them together, and rolling out a big ball of confusion. Please stop handwaving and just give us your personal opinion.

The fact that the US says "you can't do that and if you do we're going to use force" isn't really interesting.

Let's say the people in question didn't consent to either government. So they don't need to secede? They just have their own newly-established sovereign state of Maine government and everyone is cool with that?

No. What was the primary goal of the people in power in the South?

Next thing you're going to claim is that the south started the civil war.

This is a funny post for you to make since you don't really talk about Lincoln and instead focus on what scumbags the confederates were and what scumbags modern-day racists are.

Wait. Wasn't the whole point of this tangent about how Rockwell et al are racists, and one piece of evidence that demonstrates their racism is their apologetics for the Confederacy? Isn't that where this started? As far as I can tell, this whole debate started at post 1223 and has been more or less specifically related to that very point. Your post at 1391 seemed like the actual hand-waving red herring here.

You mean the primary goal of the people wanting to secede? They will have to do with power, wealth and the control over resources, the possibility to be able to keep slaves being one of them.

As I have stated in another post: I am not defending the South here.

What bugs me, is that so many people pretend that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Abolishing slavery was the means to win the war, not the end. It is obvious from a few simple facts, a very prominent being the Proclamation of Emancipation only concerning the seceded states and not the slave-keeping states in the union.

Often when issues surrounding decentralization of power and the possibility to secede from the US is discussed, it always gets down to that argument: "so you are pro-slavery" and it's the biggest strawman I have ever seen.

If somebody can simply address the questions pvn brought up about secession we can get this thread back on track to the LRC-Racist bashing thread that it was always meant to be.

Like 50 posts ago someone was kind enough to link the South Carolina Declaration of the Causes that Justified Secession. Since you didn't read it, I'll link it again.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Stop trying to learn history from crazy people. Even if they have a blog. The Civil War was about slavery. You are defending the South.

I'm not here to defend anyone else. I want to know why, if the discussion is (as fly said) about lincoln, why it always gets moved to how scummy the other guys were. I don't really care, those guys were scumbags, and sure, there are some bozos who love the confederacy, but as far as I can tell, none of them are posting ITT.

i can't believe this topic is eliciting so many posts

Guys like Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephenson?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_speech

loltastically wrong. The pre-eminient Lincoln revisionist is Tom DiLorenzo, who is no more a "Neo-Confederate" than Barack Obama, much less a racist. He is a hardcore libertarian individualist anarchist, and finds slavery, as it was practiced in both the North and South both before and throughout the war, to be an abhorent violation of natural human rights. Every despicable thing that Lincoln did that he points out he also points out that the Confederate government also did; made war on civilians, instituted a draft (I.e. slavery), paid for the war with inflation and debt, etc.

People like Fly have to lie and claim that Lincoln revisionism must necessarily be pro-Confederate, revealing that they haven't bothered to actually read any of it, so that they can smear it, the authors and all their ideas with slavery and racism, so that you will not question the status quo of the pro-centralized state academic Lincoln Cult that began to metastesize almost immediately upon his death. People like Fly worship Lincoln despite the fact that he was a thoroughly corrupt racist dictator and war criminal because he destroyed the concept of Federalism and centralized power by force, they way they like it.

I agree w/ this poast A+

Even if this characterization was true, which it of course isn't, it doesn't make them wrong.

Imo it is silly to try and discredit anti-Lincoln literature by claiming it's authors are racist when one of their main is that Lincoln himself was probably a white supremacist.

Pretty sure the guy who wrote this definitely hates black people though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_...7s_White_Dream

it always does... thats why I was wanting a separate thread, but am to lazy to make one.