It's at this point ITT I supposed I'll have you guys argue amongst yourselves, with quotes:

Ian, from what was shown to me, it seemed like some of the stated goals of the LotS were explicitly racist or otherwise terrible. Like forced segregation, making homosexuality illegal (or I guess enforcing the existing laws against sodomy), etc.

DVautning going on ITT.

Plenty of stuff showing the LOTS is a racist organization is in this thread. I don't know why you'd expect them to have a statement on racism that just cops to it. Most racists will deny it if asked directly, but still say plenty of racist things. Is this so hard to understand?

Obviously you haven't been reading this thread, but your level of credulity in reading stuff from the LOTS is somewhat impressive.

To be clear, if you just clicked around at random on the various LOTS websites, you'd find plenty of racist stuff.

FWIW, I'm not that interested in crapping on mises/Rockwell for the non-racist stuff regarding economics and the role of the state, etc., when I went back and dredged up all those quotes. Different discussion. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that Montius is STILL playing the "Rothbard spoke about how the South was wrong and condemned slavery and just ignore that other stuff", and that it's REALLY HARD to get any other libertarians contributing to this thread (and there's a lot) on record that they actually read Rothbard. More generally, it's REALLY HARD to get any other libertarians contributing to this thread (and there's a lot) on record that they actually read mises.org, Rothbard, or Rockwell with respect the Civil War and have any interest in defending them at this point with respect the Civil War. There's a whole lot of "well I don't read that site / yeah that stuff is racist / I'm done defending this guy / oh yeah they're dumb for harping on this".

At this point I can just quote a libertarian to make all my points to the libertarians still arguing with me about. Specifically, that the Civil War fetishism is a poison pill for libertarians. Because it's not hard for guys like me to go find the quotes and the articles and point to the associations between guys like DiLorenzo and the LotS and be like "see? This **** is crazy!", and the more actual libertarians interested in converting people reflexively defend it just digs the whole deeper.

My advice, again: stop talking about it. Say those guys are crazy, at least with respect to the Civil War. It's like an impossible to win battle, even if you think there's some brilliant gem of philosophical esoterica about secession and the proper role of government in the midst of all the "South with Rise Again!" stuff.

He campaigned as the moderate republican wrt to slavery. He was supposed to keep the south calm by not imposing his will on them as hard as the other rep candidate would have.

Fly, lol. You never play with facts, you just do this.

dvault,

Answer my question plz.

You get the some answer as Montius on this one.

Lincoln worked to bring about the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment and end slavery. Are you guys really trying to dispute this?

Maybe? Probably? I don't think I understand the question. If you support secession, do you support tariff issues and other minor aspects of the secession argument? If you support "secession", just as some guiding principle, you support the rights of some states to secede from a larger federal patron. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

What I'm arguing is that if you support the South's secession in the 1860s, you can't deny the pragmatic realities of the South's secession and say you deny those. You seem to completely get this; when I noted that you can't say you support engaging war but deny supporting civilian deaths, you totally get that A is a natural consequence of B. In the same respect, slavery is a natural consequence of letting the South secede in 1860.

When you ask a hypothetical about secession, as if we're talking about the normative logical consequences of some generic 'secession' -- then I don't think that question is relevant to my argument. At least not as asked.

Your inability to follow the conversation is, at some point, not my fault.

For the last time:

1. Lincoln was a devoted opponent of slavery his entire life.
2. During 1859-1861 or so desire to keep the Union together was a higher priority than ending slavery.
3. From 1863-1865 he issued the Emancipation Proclamation and promoted and eventually signed the 13th amendment.
4. Then he died.

Seriously, I don't know what kind of ridiculous home schooling you guys got, but asking "HOW COME LINCOLN DIDN'T FREE THE SLAVES IF HE WANTED TO FREE THE SLAVES SO BAD" is

A) Flatly ******ed because Lincoln did free the slaves. After the North won they could've gone back to collecting tariffs and plundering Southern industry without freeing the slaves.
B) Really bizarre given the actual secession. I mean, Southerners were able to see through his conciliatory words to the underlying reality that he wanted to free the slaves. You guys can't even aspire to be as good at reading comprehension as the people who formed the CSA?

I'm pretty sure I wrote a long recap post reminding people of this.

Dvault, it's the concept you're trying to impart upon me as best I can tell. I don't support slavery at all, it runs against what libertarianism is about. I do support the south ability so secede, I can do this without having to support something else that is not directly affiliated with this. You're close to understanding why you're wrong on your point.

Let's look at like this. If the secession movement was also in favor of moving towards some type of communist state I would also approve of that secession as well.

Also, fwiw I would still link a friend to mise.org if they wanted to read articles from the libertarian perspective even though I agree that some of their authors are racist or whatever nonsense you guys are trying to prove.

Do I doubt that the LOTS is crazy, no. Have I looked over this thread with a fine tooth comb, no. Would I be surprised that people from lot have said racist things, no. The question this all comes down to his how racist and how much DiLorenzo actually is in league with these guys.

For me this thread has gone far beyond simply telling Libertarians they shouldnt use the civil war to argue for secessionism. Most of us agree with you. This has gone far beyond the point of giving your opponent a charitable interpretation and simply become a hate fest on libertarianism. To take a few quotes or questionable associations from either DiLorenzo or Rothbard and using in an attempt to completely shut down any of the thousands of pages of quality material that they have written is intellectually dishonest. For the record I have no problem reading non-racist material from racist people that have great non-racist ideas. Western intellectual thought is full of racists and we still teach many of them today, in liberal universities no less!

Dvault, I'm not directing this at you, but seriously go see what Fly has written recently in the econ forum. Criticising us for studying crazy racist economists. This goes beyond anything that should be acceptable in this forum.

As for the LOTS stuff thats more personal interest for me. I'm at the end of my term and have too much work to actually do any sort of investigation, so lets just assume they are raging racists. It hardly changes anything about my views.

There's no coherent argument where "slavery" is not "directly affiliated" with Southern secession in the 1860s.

If you support their "ability to secede" in 1860, you support their ability to have institutional chattel slavery and not have their former federal patron stop them with force. There's no denying this. It's a natural consequence of what you claim to believe.

Okay? I don't see how this is relevant.

Me? I've never thought that or said that once in this thread or really in my life since 8th grade. I also know Andrew Johnson went with Lincoln's post slavery plans too. Why does that matter though?

Is it really hard to understand that the civil war was about slavery for some people (on both sides) and about economic control for others (on both sides). Quoting stuff is almost entirely uselessss because a lot of people were probably lieing. Not to mention that history before any kind of modern communication technology is extremely suspect. The fact that this thread is such a rage fest when the only hard core criticizer of Lincoln in this thread is probably Borodog and mabey neilso. I mean its obvious that there is a lot of rage for these two guys from the liberal posters and its also pretty obvious that this thread has just been used to let out all the internet rage that has built up over time over these two posters views.

So are we justified in invading any country where slavery is being practiced?

I'll re-quote the posts. Fly posted this, which both you and Montius quoted in your replies:

I replied to Montius:
and then to you:

Let me know what is unclear.

You were so close so very very close. Slavery is the main issue, yes. There were other issues, you don't really think I support the other issues because I support secession, but you think I have to support slavery though. You have a very inconsistent position.

You seem to be saying "If you look at X historical event and prefer a different outcome from X historical then you automatically support all(or is it just some?) outcomes from that position."

Is that correct?

Maybe? Probably sometimes.

As a matter of logic, EVEN IF WE WERE TO SAY "no, we are not justified to invade any country where slavery is being practiced", it's not magically true that if you support the South's "ability to secede" in 1860, you now don't support their ability to have institutional chattel slavery and not have their former federal patron stop them with force.

Wow. The idea that we don't have a large enough collection of, say, Lincoln's writings and speeches in order to render an appropriate historical judgment is unreal.

No history before cell phones, eh?

To bring everyone up to speed on this, while trying to figure out what Taso got banned for I discovered that the Econ LC thread was full of "Austrian"s circlejerking about how terrible of a meanie I am. It's highlighted by Boro complaining that Politics has become unreadable and how he is abandoning it, presumably because of how terribly his side ended up doing in this thread. A bunch of his posts in that thread came after he stopped responding in this one.

I couldn't help but LOL that apparently the five or so of us who
A) paid attention in 8th grade history
and
B) have access to Google
and
C) are willing to waste our free time here
drove committed intellectual titan Borodog away from this forum forever.

scholar,

Your point does not dispute his point and his point does not dispute yours. You're talking over one and another instead of looking at the two points, and other points in this thread, and coming to a reasonable conclusion. Lincoln was a politician who was supposed to keep the union together by being a moderate on the issue of slavery. He tread lightly throughout the war knowing he had no political capital to work with, but he did his **** anyway. A lot of his time his hand was forced by other people and he did not terrible **** along the way. But yes, before he died he did sign the 13th amendment.

Lincoln is just the guy who kept the empire together during a time I wish it had died.

So close to what? Having you stop asking inane questions that have been addressed probably dozens of times ITT? If only.

This is not anything I understand.

Yes, I think if you support the South's secession in 1860, you support slavery.

I don't understand the rest of that; it's basically gibberish. Sorry.

I'm not sure; I think this is more gibberish. If you prefer a different outcome from X historical then you support all outcomes from that position? I honestly have no idea what you're trying to ask me here.

Can someone else translate?

Are you asking that IF you preferred the South to win the Civil War, can you then claim you don't support slavery? No, I don't think that's tenable. If you wanted the South to win the Civil War ("the different outcome from X historical event" right?), then yeah, you support the right of people to secede from a federal patron and enslave people.