You're close to admitting your position has no merit. And I am the one who has been directly addressing you. I don't care what else is said in the thread, we have a dialogue going and we're only addressing one specific point.

Think about how you personally came to the conclusion the supporting southern secession is also supporting of slavery and try and apply that heuristic you've made to other historical events. See where that leaves you. You have a historical theory my friend, apply it to some different events to re-work it in your brain to see if it has any merit.

No. Sorry. Nice wish-casting.

Okay, done.

It has merit.

dvaut,

That's all I really wanted. We've probably found our point of disagreement. You think I'm wrong I think you're wrong. As far as I can tell I have no other arguments for you and I don't you've got any left for me.

Thanks it was a fun couple of days for me. =D

I don't know how to make it more clear than my previous post.

1. Fly notes that Lincoln campaigned to end slavery.
2. Montius says that didn't happen and accuses Fly of dishonesty.

It is a historical fact that Lincoln worked to get the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment added to the Republican Platform of his re-election campaign, and that while it failed to pass Congress before his reelection, it did pass Congress afterward.

Montius is simply wrong about this, and to the extent that your post basically echoed his, you are also wrong.

The point that after Lincoln's first election he tried to emphasize that he wasn't about to force the end to slavery in the south is decidedly not what this entire tangent was about. It had more to do with claims that, say, Rothbard wasn't in favor of slavery but Lincoln was, using nonsensical "evidence".

I am sincerely interested in understanding why this thread continues to receive so much attention.

Consider this my general inquiry as to why certain threads garner interest here and others do not.

Based upon my intermittent observations of this thread, it sure looks like the same points are now being made ad nauseum. Is new ground really being made?

And note, my question is not directed at any one side of the debate. If anything, I am especially bewildered why DVaut and Adanthar continue to respond.

Is the continued obsession in the civil war due to a lack of interest in other topics? Are people just bored?

Are there points being made here that transcend the civil war/Lincoln's racism, and somehow go to the heart of many of the politard debates? If so, maybe the Civil War-specific comments are now almost a diversion?

I'm truly not trying to be judgmental, just kind of curious if I'm missing the appeal.

I honestly dont understand how you cannot get one without the other. If we say that we have the right to invade a country for practicing slavery and punish those slave owners, how does it follow that they are now forced to pay us taxes forever now. If we are punishing them for slavery we can go in with force, free the slaves, tell them if they reinstitute slavery we will come back to give them another ass kicking, even extract restitution fees for the slaves. But I dont understand how the south is now forced to pay taxes forever. If a cop arrests me I make a payment to the justice system not that individual cop for the rest of my life.

I wasnt referring to Lincoln specifically. I was referring to people in the north, who many were against slavery, many were probably there to reinforce political theft, many were there for both. Also I was referring to people from the south, many who were there cause they wanted their slaves, and many who wanted freedom from northern aggressors. The actual sentiment of the population is going to be much harder to judge especially if we simply take Lincoln's speeches at face value. Just imagine reading bush's speeches about the war on Iraq without a modern medium of communication. I'm not trying to equate bush to lincoln but I dont see how this is disputable. I was actually trying to find a common point of view, I should have realised long ago that this isnt the thread for that.

ok seriously, this is out of control. How is calling me emo kid not bannable? How is calling people in the econ forum having a circle jerk around their racist economics not bannable? This is why people have stopped reading this thread, its a complete and total cluster**** and trying to pretend there is some kind of friendly rational discussion going on in this thread is BS.

You win, montius was wrong.

Let's say peoples of Alabama got together and decided to secede from the union today. Their reasons listed because they wish to re-institute slavery, ban homosexuality, ban women from the work force, ban immigration, institute Christianity as the state religion, and lower taxes.

Would you support this secession because you agree taxes should be lower? Why or why not?

You can be for punishing people for reinstituting slavery without believing everyone in the state owes it to you to support your particular central government forever. This is the point we've been trying to make about lincoln. Its not like his only choices were either to let them have slavery or force them into the union. There is a pro-seccessationist anti-slavery solution.

I'd support the secession, as I support all secessions, because people deserve to be governed as they choose to be. It is not a false dichotomy to say you either support or oppose all secessions, it's merely a matter of principle. People either have the right to choose their own government, or they don't. If you support the American colonists' right to secede from GB, you support all secessionist movemenets.

Does it mean I would endorse the new state that would form? Would I visit it? Would I buy products imported from that location? No, no, no.

If I believe the KKK should have the right to express themselves am I a racist or am I just pro-free expression? If I believe a pro-slavery state has the right to secede am I pro-slavery or pro-secession?

It's interesting to watch people squirm and contort trying desperately to defend political thinkers [that they never read] and cling to demonstrably false positions even after like minded persons have conceded. We are going around in circles but further clarification has led people defending certain positions to concede. It's still going because a few people are holding out...

Pure gold.

Now go back and read my discussion with sightless.

holding out to what?

What also makes it interesting that a few quality posters sharing OP's position decide to discuss the issue, while OP continues to tard the thread up with his hyperbolic diatribe. That gives is a very odd dynamic that keeps sucking people back in.

This thread is really a discussion of whether ACism as advocated through rothbard and lrc links in this forum is poisoned by the association of several thinkers (not necessarily posters) including rothbard with "southern rise again". Politics is personal, especially when discussing an ideology/ poltical cloud concept that is significantly outside the mainstream. (I would have to guess that there are very few casual revolutionary marxists in the usa right now.)

Wait, so does anybody take Mises' website seriously? From that long series of quotes, it looks like its a joke even amongst libertarians.

No. The the tariffs were going to be imposed with Lincoln's election. The tariffs would have bene federal policy, which is why the South seceded from the federal government... Obvious much?


And which facts have I stated that are incorrect? Lincoln didn't support the Corwin amendment? The South wasn't extremeley concerned about tariffs? Lincoln didn't suspend habeus corpus or issue an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the US?


Are you done with the ad hominems? I'm really starting to agree with people that you should probably be banned, not because you are offending me, but because 99% of your arguments include logical fallacies.

The only position I would take on the matter is that I think that under the Constitution a state has the legal authority to terminate it's relationship with the United States.

We arent squirming around anything. We simply refuse to be boxed in by your false dichotomy. Its not like Lincolns only two choices were either let the south have slavery or force them back into the union. Force could very legitimately be used to go into the south and free the slaves and force the south to accept whatever terms they did accept with respect to slavery while at the same not forcing them to pay taxes to Lincolns government. Why does the north get any compensation out of this, outside of whatever reparations we could argue are owed for having to wage war on the south?

I don't read it but I don't think it's a joke either. I'm sure there are many interesting articles and ideas on the site.

Be careful about presenting "facts" that you learned about the civil war from Rockwell's site.

That list is a good example. Some of those items are true, some are just misleading, and some are probably false.

Can you actually point out what straman I supposedly am setting up or are you just trolling?

Of course they do, just check other threads for links to it. They are ubiquitous in this forum.

It was a blatant political stunt because it looked like England and France were about to join the war on the side of the CFA. Take a war that's not about slavery and make it look like it's about slavery to keep your enemy from finding allies. Also, passing a law to abolish slavery in a foreign country while it's perfectly legal in your country is pretty loltastic.

Cue links to primary documents of the leaders of CSA explicitly maintaining slavery as the reason for secession for the billionth time... I really don't think HomerNoonJr has read this thread.