[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
When did it become so fashionable to twist history into the most extreme interpretations possible?[/quote]
Are you talking about the “official history” as laid out by the “official historians of record” or are you talking about the subsequent corrections to this “official history”?
Do I have a ‘right’ to slaves? If not, how does a state have the right to protect slavery? How is it a state’s right? It doesn’t even matter if Lincoln was prepared to end slavery right then and there. What mattered is that the south correctly identified growing support for doing just that, eventually. They wanted to pad their own position with the expansion of legally protected slavery into the territories.
And who the heck are these libertarians showing up, forgetting their individual rights mantra, and adopting collective (the state) rights?
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
When did it become so fashionable to twist history into the most extreme interpretations possible?[/quote]
I dunno.
A big business lawyer that twisted his words to fit any temporary agenda he might have seems to be pretty starighforward and business as usual to me.
Who knows how all the “honest Abe” BS came up.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And who the heck are these libertarians showing up, forgetting their individual rights mantra, and adopting collective (the state) rights?[/quote]
Maybe they aren’t libertarians?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do I have a ‘right’ to slaves? If not, how does a state have the right to protect slavery? How is it a state’s right? It doesn’t even matter if Lincoln was prepared to end slavery right then and there. What mattered is that the south correctly identified growing support for doing just that, eventually. They wanted to pad their own position with the expansion of legally protected slavery into the territories.
And who the heck are these libertarians showing up, forgetting their individual rights mantra, and adopting collective (the state) rights?[/quote]
States right in this case is an attempt to move governmental authority to a more local level it is in line with moving the usa towards a more libertarian ideology.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do I have a ‘right’ to slaves? If not, how does a state have the right to protect slavery? How is it a state’s right? It doesn’t even matter if Lincoln was prepared to end slavery right then and there. What mattered is that the south correctly identified growing support for doing just that, eventually. They wanted to pad their own position with the expansion of legally protected slavery into the territories.
And who the heck are these libertarians showing up, forgetting their individual rights mantra, and adopting collective (the state) rights?[/quote]
Because checks and balances are important and states rights pitted one bunch of sociopaths against the other.
Also, a government of enumerated powers is very important and it died with the second American revolution.
Did the states have the right to enslave people?
No, but that was not the issue, the issue was whether the federal government had any say in that and several other matters.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do I have a ‘right’ to slaves? If not, how does a state have the right to protect slavery? How is it a state’s right? It doesn’t even matter if Lincoln was prepared to end slavery right then and there. What mattered is that the south correctly identified growing support for doing just that, eventually. They wanted to pad their own position with the expansion of legally protected slavery into the territories.
And who the heck are these libertarians showing up, forgetting their individual rights mantra, and adopting collective (the state) rights?[/quote]
States right in this case is an attempt to move governmental authority to a more local level it is in line with moving the usa towards a more libertarian ideology.[/quote]
There is no right to move the dogged protection of slavery to any level. There is no right to protect it at any level. And any attempt to contain it and then eradicate it was morally justified.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Do I have a ‘right’ to slaves? If not, how does a state have the right to protect slavery? How is it a state’s right? It doesn’t even matter if Lincoln was prepared to end slavery right then and there. What mattered is that the south correctly identified growing support for doing just that, eventually. They wanted to pad their own position with the expansion of legally protected slavery into the territories.
And who the heck are these libertarians showing up, forgetting their individual rights mantra, and adopting collective (the state) rights?[/quote]
States right in this case is an attempt to move governmental authority to a more local level it is in line with moving the usa towards a more libertarian ideology.[/quote]
There is no right to move the dogged protection of slavery to any level. There is no right to protect it at any level. And any attempt to contain it and then eradicate it was morally justified. [/quote]
This has nothing to do with libertarianism.
The important thing to remember is it was decided AFTER the war that states do not have the right to secede. It was during the war when the federal government made a power grab and took on powers that it didn’t have before.
States rights are a good idea because they give us protection from an overbearing federal government. Slavery was the wrong cause to sacrifice them for. It’s like we replaced one tyranny for another.
I don’t buy the southerners were forced to fight because their homes were invaded argument at all. No one was invading their homes when they opened fire on Fort Sumter. Poor southerners fought because they were unsophisticated fools, who were easily manipulated. They sacrificed their lives by the thousands to defend a system that kept them poor.
The civil war was about money and power. There were wealthy people in the south who wanted to hang onto their way of life and got the poor to die to protect them. There were wealthy people in the north who took advantage of the war to enrich themselves by trading with the south.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
So by your line of logic Obama, Bush, Nixon, LBJ, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR and so on were also sociopaths? Who’s not holding water now?[/quote]
They all think they are entitled to lead us and tell us how to live our lives. That’s why they seek political appointment in the first place. There are a few exceptions to this rule.
One has to be sociopathic in order make overarching decisions and not feel any regard for the outcome. They never care about the long term consequences of the individuals who are affected by their actions because they always win even when they lose. (I cannot think of one job provided by the free market where if one were to be fired from that job he or she would continue to be paid benefits for the rest of his or her life).[/quote]
They may or may not feel “entitled” but based on the fact that these people were all ELECTED by a majority of the voting populace and NOT appointed, I wouldn’t blame them for having a sense of entitlement when it comes to making decisions regarding this country, since they were essentially elected to do so.
If you think that the aforementioned Presidents are sociopaths, fine. We are officially at an impasse and I see no point in attempting to have any discussion with you whatsoever from here on out. Carry on, but please don’t include me or anything I say in any of your asinine comments.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
When did it become so fashionable to twist history into the most extreme interpretations possible?[/quote]
Are you talking about the “official history” as laid out by the “official historians of record” or are you talking about the subsequent corrections to this “official history”?[/quote]
No, we’re talking about the history as it happened based on the examination of ONLY primary historical evidence, none of which supports your wild claims. Get a history degree and try this methodology out for a little while.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
When did it become so fashionable to twist history into the most extreme interpretations possible?[/quote]
Are you talking about the “official history” as laid out by the “official historians of record” or are you talking about the subsequent corrections to this “official history”?[/quote]
No, we’re talking about the history as it happened based on the examination of ONLY primary historical evidence, none of which supports your wild claims. Get a history degree and try this methodology out for a little while. [/quote]
It seems to me the historians on record have little regard for the analysis of human action.
Just like you disregard economics, so do they; and you both fail.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Slavery was the wrong cause to sacrifice them for. [/quote]
Agreed. The south should’ve recognized that.
You could say that the Union ultimately aided the secession of the black man from the institution of slavery. There, a worthy secession.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You could say that the Union ultimately aided the seccesion of the black man from the institution of slavery. There, a worthy seccesion.[/quote]
So they were fighting for the principle that is wrong to be forced to labor for another man, unless of course that man works for the government?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You could say that the Union ultimately aided the seccesion of the black man from the institution of slavery. There, a worthy seccesion.[/quote]
So they were fighting for the principle that is wrong to be forced to labor for another man, unless of course that man works for the government?
[/quote]
Don’t even try to compare paying taxes to southern slavery. I doubt the idea of having to pay taxes out of PAID labor (which could be left) would’ve bothered the black slave.
And stop calling yourself a minarchist if you’re going to use such juvenile anarchist language.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You could say that the Union ultimately aided the seccesion of the black man from the institution of slavery. There, a worthy seccesion.[/quote]
So they were fighting for the principle that is wrong to be forced to labor for another man, unless of course that man works for the government?
[/quote]
Don’t even try to compare paying taxes to southern slavery. I doubt the idea of having to pay taxes out of PAID labor (which could be left) would’ve bothered the black slave.[/quote]
But the soldiers of the North were not only forced to pay taxes, but also to kill or die.
That is something almost no slave was forced to do .
Also, the level of taxation today os such that it far exceeds anything that could have been extracted from slaves without killing them.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And stop calling yourself a minarchist if you’re going to use such juvenile anarchist language.[/quote]
Either it is wrong to force someone else to fork over the fruits of his labor at gunpoint or it isnt.
The whole concept is not suddenly transmogrified into “the price we pay for civilization” just because the people doing it are issued a government costume.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You could say that the Union ultimately aided the seccesion of the black man from the institution of slavery. There, a worthy seccesion.[/quote]
So they were fighting for the principle that is wrong to be forced to labor for another man, unless of course that man works for the government?
[/quote]
Don’t even try to compare paying taxes to southern slavery. I doubt the idea of having to pay taxes out of PAID labor (which could be left) would’ve bothered the black slave.[/quote]
But the soldiers of the North were not only forced to pay taxes, but also to kill or die.
That is something almost no slave was forced to do .
Also, the level of taxation today os such that it far exceeds anything that could have been extracted from slaves without killing them.
[/quote]
And if slavers ever tried to run away with part of our country again, we should once again conscript every man to defeat them, freeing those enslaved within our borders.