If the Federals had just said "all right, see you later" and left there is no chance the Confederacy would have invaded the north.

If Quebec votes to secede from Canada and Ottawa says "hey buddy you can't do that" and invades then Quebec started the war? I certainly don't think so.

Now obviously the South seceded for odious reasons. And if Lincoln says "we need to invade because slavery is terrible and blah blah blah" then that's one thing. But invading simply to keep a region of the country from seceding? That's quite another.

And of course the Southern political structure was completely illegitimate, with vast swaths of the populace disenfranchised. But again, Lincoln wasn't making that argument.

Lincoln absolutely wanted war once the South seceded. I mean maybe you want to read a history of the Civil War sometime? And was the war about slavery? Well secession was about slavery. The war war pretty explicitly about preventing secession. Anyone who thinks the war was about ending slavery at the outset is profoundly ignorant of history.

lol

How can that be? Greedo died lol

Yes, in fact I think it is worse.

You snipped the part of my post where I told you all the crazy crap you spewed itt....in the very brief portion that I've read and remember. That's obviously the stuff that drew comparisons to scientology, not ultra benign stuff like "economics played a role in the proliferation of slavery in the southern US" that likely nobody itt has ever disputed.

Left from where? As the battle of Fort Sumter proves, what specific geographic areas the "Federals" needed to leave isn't always clear. Fort Sumter was within the United States at the time of the battle. The Confederacy was a localized rebellion that was put down just like Shay's or the Whiskey Rebellions. But for some reason you don't kneejerk to declare Washington History's Greatest Monster whenever anyone mentions a quarter, and Ron Paul doesn't go around on national television lying about ways those wars could've been prevented.

Just the Civil War. As this thread proves repeatedly, it doesn't even matter what someone says to start it off, pvn and you and whatever will assume that someone said "LINCOLN WAS A SAINT" and for some reason work real hard to create a moral equivalence between the CSA and the USA.

Again, I'd love for one of the neoconfederates posting ITT to develop a coherent philosophy of law, morality, ethics, whatever that allows a fraction of the white male population of inland South Carolina to acquire a superior claim on Fort Sumter than the current peaceful possessor.

Specifically, how is it that the CSA can claim Fort Sumter and require the soldiers there to leave but the USA can't claim inland South Carolina?

Why can't you let this **** go? You, mjkidd, personally have been embarrassing yourself in this thread for years. Can't you just go "oh wow I didn't know that, maybe I should re-evaluate the credibility of the blogs and **** that taught me these vile racist lies"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

Fly, your obsession with this is really quite remarkable/sad. You get off so hard to trying to exploit libertarians for beliefs you think will trivialize them. It's amazing you devote so much time and energy to this. Ironically, I've now read many of your posts and it feels like you really lack any backbone of your own. You don't advocate for any good policy decisions past or present, you are just a non stop troll of libertarians.

I know many people who are of the libertarian ilk precisely because they believe in no discrimination toward any people at all based on race, religion whatever. There are also racists within all movements but that is beside the point. Your 'crusade' is growing really tired and old. You've probably devoted 100s of hours of your life to trying to trivialize libertarians on 2+2 and while you might be well versed in the art of trying to 'win' an argument by painting people into corners, it's just really sad and it appears you don't actually stand for much yourself.

And yes, this is a derail, I am not talking about this issue specifically but your obsession here has translated into your troll existence in basically every thread where a libertarian ever tries to speak, whether reasonably or not. There is not more pathetic than people who can't stand for anything themselves. They go around and try to find loopholes in other peoples arguments, which basically everyone has, but never have the gall to advocate any real beliefs themselves. When do you ever actually post something you stand for? Who do you support? What is your opinion on US foreign policy? Monetary policy? The role of a centralized government in a large country? Freedom? Etc etc...Good heavens, the thought of you actually standing for anything must be hard to swallow.

haters seem perturbed at the moment

lol when have I ever declared Lincoln history's greatest monster? Or anything close to it? Lincoln was far less objectionable than the Confederates. My objection to Lincoln is that he settled the question of secession in American politics in a way I find very objectionable. I think it's terrible for a country to say that no matter how many people in a region wants to leave a country, if that region freely votes to secede it will be treated as an insurrection and dealt with violently.

The Shay's and Whiskey rebellions did not involve secession.

I'm not creating a moral equivalence between the CSA and the USA. Where have I done this?

Are you saying that I am a neoconfederate? If so, **** yourself.

What is your obsession with Fort Sumter? Are you actually claiming that South Carolina should have been allowed to peacefully secede had they not fired on Sumter?

What vile racist lies exactly am I spouting here? What don't I know?

insidemanpoker is pretty sensitive about his beliefs...

mjkidd- You've made 188 posts in this thread, dude. Defending the League of the South, defending Rockwell, defending the Confederacy, attacking Lincoln...

So yeah, you're not a neoconfederate. You just happen to agree with neoconfederates about pretty much everything related to the Civil War. What an amazing coincidence!


Again, I'd love for YOU, MJKIDD, to develop a coherent philosophy of law, morality, ethics, whatever that allows a fraction of the white male population of inland South Carolina to acquire a superior claim on Fort Sumter than the current peaceful possessor.

Specifically, how is it that the CSA can claim Fort Sumter and require the soldiers there to leave but the USA can't claim inland South Carolina?

Should be really really easy to give an example of me spouting a vile racist lie then. Have at it.

Not a neoconfederate! I'm sure you just read that for the pictures.

...

Sure, as soon as you show me some of the vile racist lies I've been spouting.

Like, it's understandable that you read that book and believed the things that DiLorenzo had written, but for ****'s sake if this thread has served any purpose at all it should've been to make you a little more skeptical about **** coming for members of the League of the South.

There is a difference between open racism and subtler forms of it. People may even adopt racist beliefs without thinking about it. Like "welfare queens" slur or the skewed belief crack was a black drug. Even though as many white people were smoking it.

Great, when are you going to start posting some of these vile racist lies I've been spouting?

That you can't answer the question but still inherently grant legitimacy to the Confederacy and demand that the North justify the war, like you did on this page. That you think Lincoln wanted a war? Lincoln wanted the rebellion to stop, he did not want violence.

If you want we can go back through the whole thread and exhaustively catalogue every time you switched your avatar to a Klansman or every time you wondered what was so racist about wanting a white history month.

But I'd prefer we stuck to the subject at hand:

Again, I'd love for YOU, MJKIDD, to develop a coherent philosophy of law, morality, ethics, whatever that allows a fraction of the white male population of inland South Carolina to acquire a superior claim on Fort Sumter than the current peaceful possessor.

Specifically, how is it that the CSA can claim Fort Sumter and require the soldiers there to leave but the USA can't claim inland South Carolina?

lol

The vile racist lie I've been spouting is that I don't think that the USA should automatically answer secession with force in every case? Seriously? What is racist about that?

Now, obviously the Confederacy was vile and racist. If Lincoln wanted to fight a war to end the practice of slavery, fine, I'm on board, sounds good. If Lincoln wants to recognize that a state has the right to secede but that the South does not because it kept a large plurality of its population in chains and thus any action its representatives took was invalid, that's also fine. But he said that any secession, ever, for any reason is illegal and will be met with force of arms, and that's the law to this day. I think that's very wrong.

And yeah, I'm sure you would rather stick to that subject than defend you calling me a vile racist liar.

itt posters are completely unable to understand that there are other people who are simply opposed all (nearly all) wars, no matter what the circumstances and not for racist reasons

And me thinking that Lincoln wanted to answer Southern secession with war is a vile racist lie? Jesus christ read a ****ing history book.

That's cool, man. Let's start by criticizing the Confederacy for starting the war.

I was saying you uncritically believe vile racist lies. Like that time you read and enjoyed DiLorenzo's Lincoln book?

Not only have you radically changed your position here to that "the war would've have been justified if Lincoln had done it for the right reasons but I don't trust Lincoln's motives"(P.S. "I learned about Lincoln's true motives from like the #1 Neo-Confederate in America"), but that's all weird given that just up the page you were all about asking what justified hundreds of thousands of lives.

So if Lincoln had published the Emancipation Proclamation 3 years earlier, suddenly it's allllll good?

I don't think you really understand my point about Sumter/SC. Why did the rebels get a say in whether federal soldiers got to stay on Sumter, but federal soldiers don't get a say on whether rebels get to stay in Charleston? You're absolutely and bizarrely skipping steps to pretend that the federal government was THE NORTH AND JUST THE NORTH and the South had cleanly removed itself.

That's not true. The federal government was the entire United States. Always has been. A state cannot unilaterally secede, the US government has invested in that state and has an obligation to the citizens who reside within it. Lincoln should've just abandoned them because some other dudes wrote "we secede" on a piece of paper?

So, for like the 4th or 5th time, please provide the justification that provides a superior claim on Sumter for the CSA.