Why not?

why hasn't he refuted any of my points about lincoln and his support of the corwin amendment, his desire to win the war without freeing any slaves if possible? he asks all the questions but never gets around to debunking any of the answers.

Read this book
http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Americ.../dp/0807823198

Seriously.

I imagine this would be useful too though I have not watched it. Be careful though you might learn something. Keep in mind that historians are Lincoln cultists and academic consensus cannot be trusted.

How about you just read this quote:

and this:

and this:

and this:

Sauce: http://www.theroot.com/views/was-lin...acist?page=0,2

In fact, there is so much evidence that he was a white supremacist that prominent black historian Lerone Bennett, Jr. wrote a 650 page book on it:

http://www.amazon.com/Forced-into-Gl.../dp/0874850851

Am I being leveled?

Lincoln was a racist. Why do you believe I think otherwise? Sarcasm meter fail? I guess?

Because I said something about him being racist and your next two posts were:

Lol I can't believe you still are going on about Lincoln and racism

and

Go read a history book.

I tried considering both posts as being a level, but then they just don't make sense. I guess I'm confused about what point your are trying to make, if you are trying to make one at all.

btw I find the definition of coercion that I often see used too strict as well. Had a whole discussion on the issue on the question whether a religious organisation expelling you and cutting you off from family and friends is coercion or not (I argue it is) and learned that it wasn't because you were free to go, while it would be worse to get a beating. That doesn't do it for me, and therefore, I find it much more interesting to emphasize on the voluntary nature that cooperation should have, although eventually you run into the same definitional problems.

Still, even though I agree with you on some other issues ITT, I fail to see Rothbard saying that slave child markets are a necessary evil of an AC society, not even between the lines. It was definitely not what he intended, nor what he believed would happen, judged from that chapter alone and the few other things I have read from him.

I do agree though that emphasis on the Civil War is misplaced from an anarchistic perspective. From a libertarian point of view I understand it somewhat, as it was a defining point in history in making the union tighter and the central government stronger, but that's about it (and this goes for most, if not all wars). I fail to see a libertarian cause in fighting the North, loosely defined by SL as "fighting a coercive government". If the criterium is fighting a coercive government / entity, all wars have 2 libertarian sides, as it's pretty near to impossible to fight one (even if you are defending) without a coercive system in place.

My main interest in joining the discussion, was that I saw people arguing that the North fought the war over the slavery issue. While they did want to end it, I refuse to believe they would fight a war over that issue alone and think it is bad for the general understanding of history and the nature of wars, to believe otherwise. It obscures the real reasons wars are fought, which are never pretty. Anyway, that was conceded by Dvaut and Fly, even though Fly later returned to attack me on that very same position.

I realize it's crazy to suggest somebody who has demonstrated extraordinary misunderstanding of a subject to read a book...? You and a bunch of other people went off on a bunch of non-sequiturs about Lincoln and racism when pressed on confederate apologists and racists within LVMI/LRC. Excellent job at deflection. Now go read a book.

I think you either misinterpreted something I wrote or are confusing me with someone else. I have posted a number of times why a libertarian might sympathize with the CSA but I also said Levin was a racist and criticized Rothbard for his statement about Forrest.

Are you trying to say that I'm incorrect in suggesting that there were many people who fought on the side of the South in the Civil War whose motivation wasn't the continuation of slavery?

I'm still waiting on someone to demonstrate how LVMI and co are a bunch of racists.

So far people keep mentioning this Levin guy as if he is somehow representative of the whole organization/movement.

Also lol "OMG Rothbard made a statement about Forrest he must be a racist!!111onewon!!1"

Yeah, well he also defended Malcom X and blacks using violence for defense against racist white cops during the the Black Revolution. Sure sounds like something a flaming white supremacist/racist would say for sure!!!

Depends what you mean "many". LVMI is basically pushing the lost cause argument... not because it has any academic credibility either.

I don't know a percentage but I know from reading a bunch of civil war books (almost entirely concerned with military figures, history and strategy though) that they do exist. And that they were probably a bigger minority than ACists are in America today

In calling the Civil war a "just war" Rothbard is almost certainly pandering to lost causers. That doesn't mean LVMI is part of the the lost cause movement. There is a reason it only appears in op-eds and not their books. And there is a reason all the main examples from this thread are from over a decade ago.

In the last year there was one mises article that talked at all about the CSA. And it was a repost of a 2002 review of The Real Lincoln. If they were really interested in "pushing the lost cause argument" don't you think it would've come up in the last year when they post something like a dozen items a day?

http://www.google.com/#q=csa%20site%...bb1336baeea163

The only Mises author who mentions it is Kinsella but as I posted earlier he has no love for the CSA, another coercive government force that waged a war through conscription and taxation.

It's so cute when someone tries to bring order to a thread.

But seriously, I appreciate this history lesson of the thread, because I was fairly confused how this thing did get started. I'm much more confused why it's still going, but that's another matter.

Daxx isn't the only one doing it.

X was accomplished via Y, therefore X was the only way to accomplish Y?

If Lincoln could free the slaves in area A with the stroke of a pen, why couldn't he do it in area B with the stroke of a pen?

Ah, ok. So, think about this and the ramifications for the "CSA's secession wasn't legal" argument.

vhawk has been pwning this topic so hard, it's almost unfair.

Fellow ACists- when is our next klan, I mean ACist club meeting?

My robe is at the dry cleaners.

Dude, wtf talk in the code we all agreed upon.

pm sent

""Mr Rockwell denied authorship to Jamie Kirchick, the reporter whose New Republic article published earlier this week reignited controversy over the newsletters. But both Mr Rockwell (who attacked the New Republic article on his site) and Mr Tucker refused to discuss the matter with Democracy in America. ("Look at Mises.org," Mr Tucker told me, "I'm willing to take any responsibility for anything up there, OK?") According to Wirkman Virkkala, formerly the managing editor of the libertarian monthly Liberty, the racist and survivalist elements that appeared in the newsletter were part of a deliberate "paleolibertarian" strategy, "a last gasp effort to try class hatred after the miserable showing of Ron Paul’s 1988 presidential effort." It is impossible now to prove individual authorship of any particular item in the newsletter, but it is equally impossible to believe that Mr Rockwell did not know of and approve what was going into the newsletter.""

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...rockwell_files

Assuming this is true, do you otherwise seemingly principled Mises/LRC boosters think this is admirable? Pretty cynical politics, imo, and not any movement I want to be a part of.
["lie down with dogs wake up with flees"]

Putting Rothbard aside for the moment, what is Rockwell's story? Who thinks he was not the guy who wrote the news letters? And why obsession at LRC about "The Lost Cause" and the rooting around with white supremacists in the LOS, if it was all only a tactic used long ago to gain cracker/red neck support?

...And how about the general tolerance (promotion?) of out and out wing nut racists?
["Hats off to Lew Rockwell and his friends, for doing their best to debase libertarian ideas by associating them so closely with some of the the worst and scariest people ever to scuttle under a rock.”)]
http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/rac...-lew-rockwell/

[I know, I know, smygod!, CATO is a fake running-dog-neocon conspiracy to smite Mises/LRC and usher in the NWO!]

I agree that Rockwell and others had some sort of cynical plan to reach out to racists. That was what, nearly 20 years ago? Rockwell et al don't seem to be doing it now, and if they start, I'll certainly stop reading his website.

But then you would start again in, say, nearly 20 years, right?