The Legacy of Abraham Lincoln

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Because property owners can decide if a non-property owner’s life can be lost when they vote for a war. So if property owners want non-property owners to not vote then property owners should be the only ones who join the military. Property owners get the benefits of the collective, which includes property owners and non-property owners, so they must defer to the collective. [/quote]

Without the non-property owners’ votes*, we would not be involved in every damn war/battle/conflict/neighborly dispute in the world. Let me know if we were involved in more dumb shit before or after universal suffrage. In addition, I don’t believe anyone has been drafted in over 40 years, so property owners do not get to decide who goes to war-those who go to war go voluntarily.

*You must consider the fact that everyone has to be concerned with what a huge number of non-taxpayers/non-property owners in this country want, so even the choices/canditates we have would likely be far different…and people may get to decide between “keep my money, or go to war?” instead of “go to war, or pay for other people to exist?” When those who have nothing at stake are allowed to vote, the option to keep money goes.

142

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Because property owners can decide if a non-property owner’s life can be lost when they vote for a war. So if property owners want non-property owners to not vote then property owners should be the only ones who join the military. Property owners get the benefits of the collective, which includes property owners and non-property owners, so they must defer to the collective. [/quote]

Without the non-property owners’ votes*, we would not be involved in every damn war/battle/conflict/neighborly dispute in the world. Let me know if we were involved in more dumb shit before or after universal suffrage. In addition, I don’t believe anyone has been drafted in over 40 years, so property owners do not get to decide who goes to war-those who go to war go voluntarily.

*You must consider the fact that everyone has to be concerned with what a huge number of non-taxpayers/non-property owners in this country want, so even the choices/canditates we have would likely be far different…and people may get to decide between “keep my money, or go to war?” instead of “go to war, or pay for other people to exist?” When those who have nothing at stake are allowed to vote, the option to keep money goes.[/quote]
How many people don’t pay taxes? Sales tax, gas tax, cable tax, cigarette tax, 9/11 “tax” on car rentals, motor vehicle tax, etc. My signing bonus and student loan repay from the Army was taxed. I’d like to know who these people are that are going through life taxed free.

143

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
How many people don’t pay taxes? Sales tax, gas tax, cable tax, cigarette tax, 9/11 “tax” on car rentals, motor vehicle tax, etc. My signing bonus and student loan repay from the Army was taxed. I’d like to know who these people are that are going through life taxed free. [/quote]

I don’t know how many people don’t pay taxes. I know that nobody who works for the government(police, military, welfare recipient, etc.) does…unless that somebody has a second(private) job for which he pays more in tax than he makes in the government job. The idea that one who is paid by the government pays taxes is ridiculous.

144

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Wavy wrote:
Notes of a fed-up Southerner

Funny, but a metric asston of hypocrisy over every inch of that blog post and so much wrong it would be hard to get in one post :slight_smile: [/quote]

Says a damn Yankee.[/quote]

… says the guy from Montana? :slight_smile:

145

[quote]Wavy wrote:
Notes of a fed-up Southerner

My favorite holy cow this is nuts line is the Yankee President from Chicago trying to turn the U.S. into Russia.

That’s an odd statement in an ode to the South article where the author fails to notice how much of the South is filled with non-filing welfare loving people who just want the government to stay out of their business.

Well, keep the checks coming and stay out of our business of course :wink:

I’m sure somehow someway that is still Lincoln’s fault though.

Good thing some hard working “Yankees” are making enough money to send it the South’s way.

147

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Anywaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, shall we discuss the centralization of power under Lincoln? His legacy in that regard?[/quote]

He realized that freedom for all men was more important than strict adherence to a document that alleged to support the equality of all men while apparently also allowing for the legal ownership of men.

Freedom on one side. A piece of paper on the other. Lincoln chose freedom, the South chose a piece of paper. The South chose economic freedom over individual freedom, Lincoln went the other way. Anyone with a libertarian streak and an ability to recognize the hypocrisy in touting rights while claiming ownership of other men would have made the same choice Lincoln did. There are some things more important than strict adherence to a piece of paper that protects freedoms.

To paraphrase/borrow from George Orwell: All men are created equal, but some men are created more equal than others. That was the attitude of the Southern founding fathers who also owned slaves, and Lincoln saw right through it. He didn’t advocate total equality for blacks, but he certainly understood that no country that stood for freedom could do so in good faith and then enslave an entire race of people.

148

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Southern born and southern bred.

[/quote]
And educated, apparently.

149

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]Wavy wrote:
Notes of a fed-up Southerner

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Dixie.shtml[/quote]

Funny, but a metric asston of hypocrisy over every inch of that blog post and so much wrong it would be hard to get in one post :slight_smile: [/quote]

Says a damn Yankee.[/quote]

… says the guy from Montana? :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Southern born and southern bred.

[/quote]

Gee, never would’ve guessed it pilgrim.

150

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

To paraphrase/borrow from George Orwell:[/quote]

Please don’t!

152

Ah… Irish slaves(not indentured servants) outnumbered the blacks in the 17th century. Any ever talk about that? Why is that? Oliver Cromwell shipped 30000 Irish children to the new world to work as slaves. They were stolen from their mothers. Anyone ever talk about that? An Irish slave sold for one tenth of an African. Less value = more mistreatment. But just keep on revelling in your victim hood

153

Ah… Irish slaves(not indentured servants) outnumbered the blacks in the 17th century. Any ever talk about that? Why is that? Oliver Cromwell shipped 30000 Irish children to the new world to work as slaves. They were stolen from their mothers. Anyone ever talk about that? An Irish slave sold for one tenth of an African. Less value = more mistreatment. But just keep on revelling in your victim hood

154

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Anywaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, shall we discuss the centralization of power under Lincoln? His legacy in that regard?[/quote]

He realized that freedom for all men was more important than strict adherence to a document that alleged to support the equality of all men while apparently also allowing for the legal ownership of men.

Freedom on one side. A piece of paper on the other. Lincoln chose freedom, the South chose a piece of paper. The South chose economic freedom over individual freedom, Lincoln went the other way. Anyone with a libertarian streak and an ability to recognize the hypocrisy in touting rights while claiming ownership of other men would have made the same choice Lincoln did. There are some things more important than strict adherence to a piece of paper that protects freedoms.

To paraphrase/borrow from George Orwell: All men are created equal, but some men are created more equal than others. That was the attitude of the Southern founding fathers who also owned slaves, and Lincoln saw right through it. He didn’t advocate total equality for blacks, but he certainly understood that no country that stood for freedom could do so in good faith and then enslave an entire race of people.[/quote]

A man who knows his history knows that not just Southern landowners stood for slavery.

Yankee shipowners brought those slaves across the Atlantic.

Yankee politicians supported slavery many times at the state and national level.

The state of New York, for instance, did not even abolish slavery until 1828 – 40 years after the drafting of the Constitution.

Franklin Pierce, the 14th president of the US and only one term away from Lincoln’s, was from New Hampshire and yet fiercely protected slavery.

James Buchanan, the president prior to Lincoln, also a Yankee, from Pennsylvania vigorously supported it too.

Yankees owned slaves in the early decades of our Republic.

Blacks owned black slaves too.

Even the Cherokees owned a large number of black slaves.

Southern whites, by percentage, owned very few slaves. It was a rich man’s deal.

What’s the point of this li’l lesson? While Southern landowners are vilified for slavery and rightfully so, it was not limited to them.

[/quote]

This is all completely irrelevant to my point. Southerners, Northerners, Westerners, DownUnderers, whatever. The fact is that Lincoln chose individual freedom for everyone (not complete freedom, but ending slavery is obviously the first gigantic step toward that end) and the South decided that they’d rather secede than uphold the principles that they, and many others outside of the South, hypocritically espoused when it suited them and their needs.

I love America, but I really have a hard time reconciling the massive hypocrisy that a good part of this country was built on. How do others reconcile this? How do we hold up the Constitution as a perfect document that should be treated in absolute terms when the people who wrote it engaged in behavior that was completely inimical to the very fabric of that document?

157

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bert, where do you stand on today’s version of slavery in America?[/quote]
Smartphones?

158

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I love America, but I really have a hard time reconciling the massive hypocrisy that a good part of this country was built on. How do others reconcile this? [/quote]

It isn’t really a reconciliation as it is an understanding.

You’re talking about the clash of ideals and perspective of “what is”. Of course there is going to be some convoluted overlap of philosophical leanings. Slavery had been a practice prevalent in almost every culture the world has even seen, even when the civilizations were isolated form each other. It was “what you did”.

And the idea that all men were equal under the law, rich, poor, minority, majority, etc was relatively new to government compared to slavery.

Nothing justifies one man enslaving another, however you can understand where the action came from if you look at if from the prespective of history.

159

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bert, where do you stand on today’s version of slavery in America?[/quote]

Well, since I am a member of S.T.O.P., and have been for several years, I think that makes my stance crystal clear. I am totally against all forms of slavery. I wouldn’t throw taxation into that mix, unlike some of my fellow Libertarians, but I think sexual slavery in particular is a heinous thing that needs to be eradicated.

I’ll actually be traveling up to Chico this May to give a short talk about some efforts that the locals up there can make in order to raise awareness about just how prevalent sexual slavery is. Particularly in that area, given that the Interstate 5 corridor between LA and Washington is ravaged by sexual slavery.

Where do you stand on it?

160

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I love America, but I really have a hard time reconciling the massive hypocrisy that a good part of this country was built on. How do others reconcile this? [/quote]

It isn’t really a reconciliation as it is an understanding.

You’re talking about the clash of ideals and perspective of “what is”. Of course there is going to be some convoluted overlap of philosophical leanings. Slavery had been a practice prevalent in almost every culture the world has even seen, even when the civilizations were isolated form each other. It was “what you did”.

And the idea that all men were equal under the law, rich, poor, minority, majority, etc was relatively new to government compared to slavery.

Nothing justifies one man enslaving another, however you can understand where the action came from if you look at if from the prespective of history. [/quote]

No need to patronize me. Of course I understand this issue from a historical perspective. I have a degree in history and political science. I am acutely aware of the atmosphere under which the Constitution was drafted and all of that.

What I don’t understand is why many conservatives, including many of my fellow Libertarians, feel it is preferable to apply an 18th century perspective to 21st century issues. I guess I’d rather let the Constitution grow and change based on the times rather than adhere to the perspective and ideologies of people who gratefully fought for freedom on the one hand and then turned around and purchased people at auctions.