What Southern plan was advanced to end slavery? Which Southern leader offered a timetable to free the slaves as an alternative to secession? Did they even give a hint that they were considering another way of life? (A way of life that suited the wealthy slave owners, that is.)
No, the South seceded to preserve the right to hold humans in chattel slavery. The North fought back to preserve the Union. But the end of the bloody mess was the end of slavery.
It seems odd that these Libertarians decided to ride the rotting corpse of The Lost Cause about the time we got a black president.
Why don’t you explain yourself more clearly on WHY you have such animosity towards states rights? Especially since you acknowledge that the Civil War was not fought over slavery.
Like I suggested in a previous post, I don’t actually support secession, except in the most severe circumstances where there are no other options. I support it in principle. It is very important to note that many people, including myself, support states rights and the principle of secession but don’t consider themselves Confederate apologists. The reason abolitionists like Lysander Spooner and others actually supported the South boils down to this:
The effect of The Civil War was to get rid of the notion of States Rights and Secession and establish a more powerful federal government. Whether or not the reasons that southern states seceded had any merit is immaterial. There are those who love liberty that wanted to protect the principle of states rights and secession so that in the future states could call upon this tactic for the noble defense of liberty and to protect her citizens, in the manner that the Founders advocated.
As far as your charge of treason, to what should the American people be loyal to? Should they blindly be loyal to the State at all cost? This sounds a lot like the Neo Con definition of Patriotism. The Government is not the United States. The PEOPLE are the United States in that they grant the Federal Government the right to exist as free people. People should be loyal to liberty and equality. And they should pursue any and all methods at their disposal to defend themselves and their fellow man against those that threaten their rights and sovereignty. Again, a basic civics course might be in order for you to understand these things.
Whilst I appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into the OP, this isn’t a fifth-form English exam question and concluding with a curt quasi-command to “Discuss” isn’t, IMHO, the best way to encourage a civilised and reasonable discussion of the points you raise.
I don’t know what you mean by “these libertarians”. But let me clear up a misconception you may have (you hinted at it): Libertarians are incapable of being racists. The philosophy of individual liberty is incompatible with all forms of bigotry, intolerance, and prejudice. A libertarian sees all people as not members of groups but as individuals who should be judged by their character and actions, just as my personal hero Dr Martin Luther King Jr. advocated.
My goal is not to defend the South. Those who stood up for slavery were morally indefensible and repugnant to all people of conscience. My criticism is for the North in how they handled the situation, especially Lincoln. It was his choice to invade his own country. There were many options he could have taken to get rid of slavery without a Civil War. Since, by his own writings, he was a racist and had no desire to eliminate slavery, his actions are even more suspect.
I am advocating that we should have continued to have States Rights and have eliminated slavery. This would have been the outcome consistent with maximum liberty. Instead we (eventually) ended slavery (even though true equality wouldn’t come for at least another hundred years) and we established a more powerful central government that grew to threaten the liberties of ALL Americans over time (continuing with the establishment of the Federal Reserve and Personal Income Tax in 1913).
Not to switch topics, but I do hope you have given up on this silly notion of our president providing hope and change to the masses. In this post meltdown age, public officials are not divided into Left and Right, but rather those on the side of the banks or those on the side of the American people. Obama has proved beyond a doubt that he is 100% on the side of the banks and corporations against the American people. Grow up about this fact.
You are right that A big reason for southern states seceding was slavery. It certainly wasn’t the only reason. Lincoln had many chances to resolve this dispute peacefully and didn’t. He didn’t even make the effort. It was clear that his intention was to take us to war. His motives were more economic than moral.
Plus you are ignoring the fact that although the southern economy was based much more heavily on slavery culturally, there existed many abolitionists in the south and many were drawn in to supporting the south once Lincoln’s army invaded. Regardless of the reason for those states that seceded, once the war started many could not bear to see their home land destroyed by the Northern Army and fought on the side of the South. There were many that could see that Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves. There were others that, although they hated slavery, felt that Lincoln had no right to commit the atrocities that he and his army perpetrated on the American people and felt the need to resist.
I know wars are portrayed as heroic and romanticized in our media and you have a hard time grasping the horrors that they entail. Especially wars in history books. But we need to understand in a more immediate way the atrocities of war. ALL Americans rights were violated in the Civil War. So many people killed or injured, even in the South, had done no wrong. Don’t pretend Lincoln’s army selectively aimed their rifles at only racist slave owners and Southern bigots. And thousands of slaves were killed as well! For a more nuanced discussion of secession and the civil war from a libertarian perspective, check out this link:
Facts are facts. I don’t cloud the truth simply because of how the modern politically correct media portrays the situation. Go look through some of my links that I posted and study some more Civil War history so you can get a better grasp on the subject.
No, I’m not quoting anyone in particular, though I consider these sentiments to be very close to what Washington, Jefferson, and Madison would say. The bottom line is none of us should be loyal to a government (even our own). We should be loyal to the principles which founded our government. Or loyal to completely different principles if thats what you believe. I just don’t buy into the fact the one must blindly support the government or be labeled unpatriotic or a traitor.
I shouldn’t have questioned your intelligence by making remarks like that. I don’t know you, and you may be very intelligent for all I know. Its just that so many replies on this thread seem to be from people who simply absorb what they hear from second hand sources without exercising any critical thought whatsoever. It seems to many that you are either a racist redneck neo confederate or you buy into the revisionist fantasy that seeks to deify Lincoln and blame the south for all the problems of its era (ALL parts of the country were complicit in the injustice of slavery). I just think we deserve better as our public discourse on this subject.
So, why don’t you give a more detailed rebuttal of my views and give your own opinions of Lincoln, the principle of states rights and secession and whether or not you agree with me that there was a better way to end slavery. Its an important topic to discuss.
I like this. So, we’re supposed to start over now, in the year 2010, and ban slavery? Or do you mean, start over in the year 1840? Or do you mean start over in the year 1788? Because they’re very different concepts.
Given that racism among whites was the norm, not the exception, in those days, labeling Lincoln a racism is not saying much. In fact, in a letter in 1855, he wrote:
When you refer to Lincoln having “no desire to eliminate slavery,” it seems you are referring to this quote:
Actually, this makes Lincoln’s motivations clearer and even less disputable. Lincoln’s goal was to preserve the Union at all costs. You can’t invade territory that is already a part of yours.
What are you talking about? You earlier cast aspersions on Lincoln because he did not begin the war with wanting to end slavery, now you are saying that Lincoln wanted a civil war for its own sake? Lincoln’s first inaugural address easily disproves your baseless assertions about Lincoln’s intentions. If Lincoln wanted a war at any cost, why did he wait for the Confederates to fire the first shot at Fort Sumter? Why would he give a conciliatory inaugural speech, beseeching the South not only for peace but also reconciliation?
What atrocities are you talking about? Resupplying Fort Sumter and refusing to cede it at gunpoint? Calling for enlistments to help put down the rebellion in the South? There were no Union or Confederate deaths due to hostile fire during the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter (with only one Confederate death due to a misfire and two Union deaths afterward during a gun salute upon its surrender).
I think you need to re-read a few history books. No one here is white-washing or deifying the Union, Lincoln, or the conduct of the Union Army during the war.
Come up with a better-written exam & we might be tempted to get out the little blue booklets. And come up with some better sources–none of them “second hand.”
What “first hand” sources are you privy to? Do you have an open channel beyond the grave to the protagonists of the Civil War?
Uh-huh. Tell that to Ron Paul and some of his supporters. Libertarianism provides a nice cover for opposition to civil rights laws - it’s not like we’re bigots or nuthin’, we just want to preserve individual liberty to oppress people. :dubious:
And of course the Yanks stuck with that and took nothing else of value from what was left of Southern homes. Sorry, Jack.there are too many family stories of what was hidden and where and what was taken. The Southern boys would have done the same thing. And I would think that such a war would tend to bring out the worst in anyone. Some homesteads were left with just nothing.
How old were you when you moved from the South, Diogenes? The notion of the “happy darky” was at least contradicted by what was in our textbooks in the early 1950s. Also, slavery was mention as the primary reason for the South going to war.
Oh, that is so wrong! How about those stumbling blocks to a woman’s rights to abortion on demand for the first two terms? The states are making a mockery of that. But don’t get me started. I could give other examples and many reasons for why I am a supporter of a strong Federal Government.
BTW, I am an 11th generation Southerner. I live on a Civil War battlefield in a Liberal city.
It always makes me wonder when I read things like this why there’s so much debate over what the South was trying to do. All you have to do is read their Constitution, which for a group of people who were trying to limit the powers of the Federal Government seems like an odd thing to copy almost word for word, with a few key differences as outlined below. You will notice a recurring theme.
Article 1, Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Article 4, Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.
Article 4, Sec. 3, (3) … In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
There’s an excellent side-by-side comparison of the two Constitutionshere.
Utter nonsense. One can easily believe that government should have no authority to impose itself on any individual while still believing that THOSE people are basically inferior humans. Posting this sort of unreal abstraction as though a “good” libertarian’s ideal is held by all who hold libertarian values is without any basis in fact.
You keep trying to make claims about Lincoln and what he might have done that are utterly unsupported by facts. That you need to demonize one man while ignoring the fact that the war was pretty much inevitable even before the election indicates that you really have no serious understanding of U.S. history between 1859 and 1861. In addition, you keep making claims that there is more to the situation than some simplistic (probably high school history) texts, explain, (and I would agtree), but then you turn around and make the same sort of simplistic claims on your own side.
There is nothing that Lincoln could have done that would have prevented secession and permitting secession would have ensured the survival of slavery for some undetermined period of time. It was his election that caused seven states to declare that they were seceding from the Union even before his inauguration in spite of the fact that one of his principle themes during the election campaign was that he had no intention of changing the law regarding slavery.
That you ignore that salient fact in your diatribe indicates an agenda that precedes the facts.
Not one “reason” for secession was based on anything not tied directly to slavery, so your first two sentences are meaningless. Given that there were seven states in secession BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE, your complaint that he did not “try” to eliminate slavery without splitting the country is utter rubbish.
Facts are facts and your spiel is seriously short on them. Have you bothered to read any of the primary sources that others have posted, here?
As do yours, just from different sources.
Then, perhaps, the next time you attempt to have a similar discussion, you can refrain from the fact-free claims and demonization of individuals with which you initiated this thread?
There is a problem that some people hear “states rights” and immediately thing “racist redneck.” Part of that is due to the way that history is poorly taught in schools. Unfortunately, a lot of it originates from the fact that “states rights” has been the rallying cry of slaveholders and Jim Crow advocates and others who have sought to deny citizens their rights.
There is still a serious effort to incorporate genuine states rights into the national political fabric. However, since the phrase “states rights” is already legitimately tainted by its association with racist rhetoric, those who advocate a serious discussion on the topic tend to use the word federalism.
We can have a legitimate discussion of federalism, of course. However, a discussion that starts off as a diatribe against Abraham Lincoln, that pretends that slavery was not the overriding cause of the Civil War, and that displays a serious lack of information regarding history is probably not going to lead to a successful discussion of that topic.
Zoe, the quote of jrodefeld I was responding to was this:
The line about “all their possessions” being lost is clearly nonsense. Some families undoubtedly lost material goods (including some not of military value - looting is a part of all wars), but jrodefeld made it sound like everything in the South was confiscated by the North as a prize of war.
Slavery might have become economically unnecessary within a few decades after the 1860s, but cultural racism would have kept it alive long after that. After that I think you would have seen something like apartheid-era South Africa, not a ban on slavery and “maximum liberty” and states’ rights.
Why should the North buy the slaves and give the South money for something so evil? And what’s to stop the South from simply importing more slaves to sell or use?
A lot of people are doing a great job pointing out that the whole war was about slavery, not the revisionist “state’s rights” that these Neo Confederates are claiming. However, I want to make a different point:
Slavery is so evil and detestable that even if it was about state’s rights, it doesn’t matter. State’s should NOT have rights if it leads to slavery. I want a powerful, tyrannical, big brother federal government if it bans slavery and forces all other states to kowtow to it’s unlimited power. State’s rights, to me, is pointless if it leads to slavery. If any state ever declares that it even has the alleged right to have slaves under some nebulous “state’s rights” issue, then that whole state should be utterly stripped of it’s rights and taken over. NO state, now or ever in the future, should ever have any slaves at all
I haven’t lived there since I joined the Navy in 1984 (I was 18).
I wasn’t talking about textbooks, I was talking about actual people, including direct family. It was a common, populist meme that “slaves weren’t really treated that bad,” “most of them were happy,” " slaveowners cared about their slaves," “most slaves loved their masters,” etc.
Also, the complete load of crap that the Civil War was really about states rights, and that immediate emancipation was the wrong way to free the slaves because they didn’t know how to take care of themselves.
Also, Sherman was like Hitler down there. As a kid, I had taken it for granted that everyone agreed that Sherman was a war criminal, but I found out that up north, people just tend to see him as one more Union General, and that the March was just a normal part of war.