Are you talking about Montius's posts or the South Carolina thing?

Lol. I found you a new avatar btw Fly:

I'm pretty sure he meant he hasn't read Montius' posts ITT which is what you asked him to comment on.

My ninja edit after I deduced that will make this conversation tangent seem confusing and nonchronological.

FWIW, I don't believe he's read the South Carolina thing either.

I don't know why I keep having to repeat this. Of course your grandfather can't consent on your behalf before you're born. Therefore, any act purporting to do so by your grandfather is void against you. For example, if your grandfather signs a contract agreeing that you will send 5% of all wages you earn to the United States, that act does not actually bind you at all. Therefore, you don't need to do any act to rescind the contract; it's just void. Likewise, if your argument is that the people who lived in the South around the time of the civil war were not bound by the Constitution of the United States, and therefore not part of the Union to begin with, there's no need for them to rescind their membership in the Union; they never were members (precisely because it was their forebears, and not they, who ratified the Constitution). Unless you want to argue that they consented tacitly (and I know you don't), they can't secede within the normal definition of secession, which, again, means to formally withdraw membership from a political state.

Don't you get the point? At a legal level, the Southern states, entities bound by the United States Constitution, acting in their capacities as states attempted secede from the Union. Then we ask the constitutional question whether they'd already agreed not to do so, which the Court has resolved for us. They needed the consent of the United States to do so. O.K., but who wants to talk like that, right? The formalism dodges the heart of the issue: the economic and political realities that lead to the Civil War. So, we ask, why did a group of people decide that they needed to be free from rule by another? Well, it just so happens that all or most of those people owned slaves, depended on slaves for their economic livelihood, and that the things those people say about their own actions (as we can learn from reading primary historical sources) clearly and unambiguously show that they were trying to ensure that they could keep owning slaves. Is this laudable? Are these the people libertarians want to pick as our example for how people might peacefully separate from a tyrannical order? But what's that you say? You aren't defending slavery? I know you're not, and neither am I defending Lincoln (though he did play an instrumental role in ending slavery) or all of the North's tactics (and neither is DVaut1), though I do think some force is justified in freeing slaves. But when mises.org, an institution trying to maintain some academic credibility, publishes writing that appears dead set on making the South out to be the victim, it doesn't help libertarianism gain acceptance, indeed, it makes libertarians appear racist. As DVaut1 pointed out, there are many, many, many other examples of secession that don't come with the baggage that the people whose acts of secession you're defending enslaved other human beings, and regarded those human beings as inferior on the basis of race.

Great, so I don't need to defend the actions of the North (waging war) to condemn the actions of the South (enslaving people) either, right?

GMAFB. Of course not.

Wait, is Fly still conflating "Why did the South secede" with "Why did Lincoln invade"?

So (1) mises.org just posts articles about this out of sheer historical interest, and (2) tries to suggest that the South's secession wasn't about slavery because, goddamnit, that just wasn't what it was about? Come on. And if isn't as important as all that, why can't we have a different example?

What? I totally concede that about Lincoln. Lincoln's motive in the war was not, at least initially, the abolition of slavery. So what? Does this mean we should probably write articles arguing about how the South was victimized by the North? Even if you can't understand that there might be some reasons why this isn't true, or is at least an oversimplification, can you at least acknowledge that writing about this topic, in this day and age, in America is not likely to make you seem like a racially sensitive person? And that so, if you want to garner academic respect for an argument for peaceful separation from a tyrannical regime, perhaps you ought not to pick the antebellum South as your example?

Did you say earlier that you didn't read or watch any of the stuff from Mises about Lincoln? If you haven't, why should I explain to you what their goal is with it? Just read/watch the stuff yourself.

DrModern,

I'm going to guess that you haven't actually read any of the Mises Institute's scholarship on Lincoln and his war, have you?

Because you have no idea what you are talking about.

If "why did the South secede" is so unimportant why do you, Montius, et al. feel compelled to lie about their reasons?

This whole "Lincoln was pro-slavery" stuff would've been breaking ****ing news to South Carolina, which seceded almost immediately after Lincoln's election because they were convinced he was going to free the slaves.

LOL he did, dumbass Southerners.

Here's a pretty great Lincoln quote. It's telling in several aspects: Edit: Reading between the lines is a firable offense at the Mises Institute so that first sentence is like nails on a chalkboard.

I am not Montius.

This was in a post where you accused the North of "plundering" the South with tariffs via FYP.

Yes?

I already conceded this "What caused the war" argument like 800 posts ago to ElliotR because "What caused the war" is a flawed question.

A flawed question that your Mises.org education answered incorrectly. Mises loves people who answer that question incorrectly, as we see in that 5 or 6 people in this thread all spouting the same tariffs/Northern Aggression nonsense.

That's because Mises does a poor job of keeping the racists out, and it plays into DrModern's point. If you want to argue for secession, fine. But that doesn't mean you need to let the Neo-Confederates rewrite history on your stationery.

As usual, Fly ruins your plans

Yawn.

in B4 crying over elliots "clever" thread name

OPs get to choose their own thread titles, subject to the requirement that they accurately indicate what the thread is about. So if Fly wants another title he can say so.

OP has nothing to do with the civil war IMO.

I'm prescient.

did ne1 else lol? yes, because the Supreme Court has a great history of upholding constitutional provisional in accordance with their original intent. /sarcasm.

I seriously doubt you have any remote knowledge of US constitutional history or the simple fact that Virginia and New York refused to join the Union without an explicit guarantee by James Madison himself that they could leave the Union at their leisure.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news...te_defender_of

Fly's prescient.