Not the slave holders in Maryland, or West Virginia, or even DC itself. DC’s enslaved population was freed by an act of Congress and their former owners were compensated.
The Emancipation Proclamation specifically exludes all areas under not in rebellion from emancipation, down to the county and parish level.
Slavery was legal in the United States until the Constitution was amended after the rebellion ended.
I’m glad to hear you say that. It’s funny when people who pretend to like liberty get so concerned about the Union’s activities in suppressing criminals while pretending that the criminals were freedom-loving patriots.
The position is that the causes of a war don’t have to be symmetrical, which is a completely unsupportable premise pro-Confederates try to smuggle in implicitly.
That is, if one side goes to war for premise A, the other side does not necessarily go to war for the equal and opposite premise NOT A. Each side’s reasoning must be examined, and conclusions must be drawn, separately and with a commitment to intellectual honesty.
So the South went to war to preserve slavery in the face of Lincoln, a member of a party opposed to the expansion of slavery, winning the election, with South Carolina attempting to secede in December of 1860. The North went to war after would-be secessionists fired on an American fort. The Cornerstone Speech and the various states’ Articles of Secession are clear on the South’s reasoning, and the North’s reasoning is blatantly obvious after the attack on Fort Sumter.
So, no, we won’t have anyone trying to equivocate or smuggle unsupportable premises here.
The IRS, as far as I can tell, is totally peaceful. Therefore you must have no objection to them, right?
As for slaveholders, here is Farnaby’s model of the Civil War.
Yank pointing gun at Rebel: You own slaves, brother?
Reb 1: No, I can’t afford them.
Yank: You can go. (To Reb 2) You own slaves?
Reb 2: Yes, I own 3 and they want to be slaves.
Yank: Boom.
Kentucky, a slaveholding state, did not secede and arms were not taken up against them. So arms were taken up against se3cessionist traitors, many of whom happened to be slave owners.
I understand that libertarians like to point out that Standard Oil’s market share was decreasing at the time that it was broken up.
But yeah…not 6%. Multiply that by 10 at least. At its peak it was in the 90s.
But surely some British were still slaveowners after it became politically untenable and hadn’t changed their attitudes at the time the law was passed. But there were… peacefully coerced?
To address the continued contention that enslavement ended in the British Empire in 1834:
“British Emancipation Act of 1834 was equally half-hearted. It ended slavery only in the Caribbean, not the rest of the British Empire. Slavery only became illegal in India in 1848, on the Gold Coast in 1874, and in Nigeria in 1901. In the late nineteenth century, colonial soldiers and police in Africa were often slaves themselves. Even after it was officially prohibited, slavery continued under other names as indentured service or forced labor. As late as 1948, colonial officials privately acknowledged that domestic slavery existed in northern Ghana.”
Nobody is being forced to do business with companies like Microsoft or Amazon, or any other business. They only have power over you to the extent of the power you give them. You are always free to find an alternative. But there are consequences to not dealing with the IRS.
And it should go without saying that slavery is incompatible with libertarianism. In fact, it’s the opposite.
We have a say so over our government, we vote, and we can sue. A private individual, with no government oversight, does whatever the fuck they want. Can’t sue, no legal system. Can’t vote for how the company you work for runs, because you’re not a share holder. I don’t know why a few people point out the Gov is ran by individuals, I think you’re purposely missing the point.