They were Ron Paul supporters who did not govt spending.

OK.

BTW, still wondering who's going to bat for invading Iraq, Iran, NK, whatever.

Ergo, Ron Paul is rewriting history to make a bunch of morally bankrupt dudes more sympathetic.

US was obviously morally bankrupt when seceding from England due to having slaves.

TC,

you are better than that. Stop channelling swinginglory.

OK, sounds good to me.

/thread?

None of the above, but unless you agree with the Dred Scott decision, slaves were people, not property, and thus had constitutional rights that weren't being recognized, creating a different situation.

Awww, you got my hopes up a little.

There's a point when a fight brews that someone is gonna throw the first punch. The die was already cast and a first shot was inevitable. The South believed that the North was trespassing on their territory. So they retaliated (in their mind). The North believed that they had rights to such territory and held their ground. Two sides refusing to back down in a conflict, and someone shot first. Both felt threatened by the other.

Is there a point to the question?

if the only two decisions were between fighting a war to free slaves (of course the civil war wasn't intended to free the slaves but w/e), or purchase the freedom of slaves an essentially peacefull solution. The second option is better from basically any way you look at it.
Lincoln had seriously considered a puchasing solution as a larger scheme to negotiate with the confederate states, recently a historical document was discovered proving this. but i have since lost track of the historical documents that explained why he abandoned that idea.

He abandoned it because the south started a war. It's not like the South asked for money and then Lincoln was all, "**** no bitches imma kill you!"

Doesn't it though... isn't the whole bedrock of libertarian thought built on the the concept of not initiating aggression? And wasn't the GAR just simply involved in righteous retaliatory aggression?

I agree that slaves were/are people with human rights.

So, I can assume you're on board for an invasion of China?

It doesn't matter in this particular case.

It matters in other cases

#realityiscomplicated

This is very true. Officers like Sherman who correctly predicted a very long and very bloody war were thought to be insane. But the libertarians aren't the only ones with revisionist history here; Fly et al who saying that Lincoln's intent was to free the slaves at the outset of the war are wrong as well. If the war had played out like Lincoln and his cabinet envisioned -- a short quick minor war over in a few months -- the slaves would have almost certainly not been freed. The fact that the war was so long and so bloody and required the complete and utter conquest of the South is precisely why abolition was possible. A short war followed by a negotiated peace without the complete destruction of the South and its economy would not have given the Federals the opportunity to end slavery.

we're going to kill you until you love freedom

i dont believe that the battle of fort sumner was a justified event for a wide scale scale civil war. shots were fired at the north, because the north was maintaining a military operation on foreign soil. idk how you would feel if a forein country maintained a military base in your home state, probably wouldnt be exited about it.
the events at sumner could not justify in any rational sense a wide scale war, which should be more accurately called the war of northern aggression. The intent of the confederates at sumner was never to take on full scale military assault on the north, but simply kick out a foreign invader. The civil war was waged as a northern campaign to force a territorial region into submission. The events at sumner should have been an isolated incident.

side issue: a huge percentage of those who defend the civil war really have no grasp on what a devastating event it was. they see 600,000 as simply a statistic. it you had to imagine the absolute worst nightmare scenario to solve slavery and the secession of southern states, you might imagine the civil war, but even most people cant conjure up something that messed up.
years in the future african historians may be defending the second congo war as an absolutely necessary event in history.

lolol are you ****ing serious tom

Ft. Sumter was federal property, and it was at the time of secession. To continue pvn's analogy, who's mugging who at this point?

It's like I stepped back in time to 6 months ago.

I know if you were better at reading you probably wouldn't believe so much neoconfederate horse****, but I never said that. I don't think anyone else said that. Not in this thread, at least.

Like, pvn generally just skims threads and scripts his first 15 or so posts per thread, so he's doing the same thing. Nobody is saying Lincoln was a saint or the Union were flawless heroes. The United States government has been doing awful **** to various people since 1776.

The issue here is about Ron Paul making **** up, **** that even if it was true is morally reprehensible(The slaveowners had NO RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FOR THEIR SLAVES, northern states abolished slavery without a buyout for ****'s sake, though again I'm 99% that even after reading this sentence you guys will doubt that happened) and pvn defending that before randomly backtracking to lol agree with me and Wookie.

Try 3 years

Last quote before the merge/bump was 5 months ago so suck it.