# U.S. Civil War question **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 24, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477 "2014-03-24T20:44:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/81 "2014-04-08T11:04:51Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > In one narrow sense the South had a point: if an overwhelming majority of its citizens didn’t want to be part of the United States anymore, how could a government claiming to stand for democracy and freedom force them at gun point to remain? This is only a valid point if you believe that the South’s criteria for citizenship was legitimate. It wasn’t, by the way. Counting all adults, it’s very unlikely that anything close to an overwhelming majority wanted to secede. ---
**Author:** ![Chihuahua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dec6dc/32.png) [@Chihuahua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chihuahua)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/82 "2014-04-08T12:12:31Z")
LOL, the Mythology of the Lost Cause is alive and well among the Straight Dope apologists. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/83 "2014-04-08T13:04:38Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > A tariff is a tax, you know. There’s enough of a technical distinction that the Constitution considers them two different things. The federal government was granted explicit power over international trade. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Libertarianism \ despite their protestations they are pretty much anarchists by another name, The Anarchists would bitterly dispute that. > [@](#): > > Except as slaveholders, they were by definition against democracy and freedom. They didn’t ask the slaves their opinion on the matter or allow them freedom. That’s obvious to us; but they were so invested in their master/slave mentality that they simply didn’t see it. It wasn’t just hypocrisy- they apparently really believed that Africans were a sort of sub-human, more of an australopithecine than a human. They didn’t care that African-Americans didn’t have citizenship any more than they cared that horses, cows and dogs didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/84 "2014-04-08T13:26:01Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > It simply isn’t. It simply is. > [@](#): > > Consider the difference between the Chief of Police saying “I am going to send officers to invade your home” versus saying “If you were to sit inside your living room and start shooting at people outside, it might become necessary for me to have police officers enter your home by force.” You think those are equivalent statements? These aren’t. What Lincoln said and what **Will Farnaby** described as his statement are. Please provide a cite that demonstrates that most libertarians don’t care about slavery. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/85 "2014-04-08T14:00:20Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > It wasn’t just hypocrisy- they apparently really believed that Africans were a sort of sub-human, more of an australopithecine than a human. They didn’t care that African-Americans didn’t have citizenship any more than they cared that horses, cows and dogs didn’t. Anyone who claimed to believe that was either lying or stupid. Otherwise there wouldn’t be laws against education. Can you educate a cow? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/86 "2014-04-08T14:36:05Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Anyone who claimed to believe that was either lying or stupid. Otherwise there wouldn’t be laws against education. Can you educate a cow? [George Cuvier](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Cuvier) was a leading naturalist in the early 19th Century. He examined the body of [Sarah Baartman](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Baartman), known as ‘The Hottentot Venus’, and determined that she was [‘the missing link’](http://web.mit.edu/racescience/in_media/baartman/baartman_m&g_june95.htm) between humans and animals. People did believe that Blacks were sub-human, and they had ‘scientific evidence’ to back them up. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/87 "2014-04-08T16:27:10Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > It simply is. > These aren’t. What Lincoln said and what **Will Farnaby** described as his statement are. I’ve provided a rather compelling explanation as to why he’s wrong, which you’ve elected not to address, so I guess that’s that. Why you’re arguing in favour of such a bizarre and easily falsifiable claim I can’t imagine, but it’s your loss. > [@](#): > > Please provide a cite that demonstrates that most libertarians don’t care about slavery. I didn’t say most libertarians did. I said that libertarians **who celebrated the Confederacy** did. You have to admit that the central question is a good one; why do so many libertarians have it in for the one President out of 44 who did more to provide people with freedom than any of the other 43? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/88 "2014-04-08T16:35:45Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > That’s obvious to us; but they were so invested in their master/slave mentality that they simply didn’t see it. They certainly _did_ see it on some level; that’s why they warped their entire culture into an excuse and justification for slavery. That’s _why_ they became so invested in a master/slave mentality in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/89 "2014-04-08T16:36:51Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Whig statist cohort? Abe Lincoln was a Republican. It was the Republican party that . . . . . . had absorbed the remnants of the Whigs. Lincoln began his career as a Whig and was always all for Henry Clay’s American System – central bank, protective tariff, and “internal improvements,” i.e., federally-funded transportation-infrastructure projects such as roads and canals. All of which seems like plain common sense in hindsight, but to **Farnaby’s** kind of libertarian I suppose it would make one a “statist.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/90 "2014-04-08T16:38:39Z")
> [@Sitnam](#): > > He was ignorant of military strategy in the beginning of his presidency, something he worked hard to remedy as you say, but my criticism extends beyond that. Henry Halleck was a good organizer, that is the man responsible for any semblance of balancing military with political needs. Of course an administration isn’t a one man show, but lets place the praise at the feet of the man who earned it. > He trusted George McClellan far too much and for far too long. After he was removed Lincoln swung the other way and his impatience alienated talented generals (Reynolds and Hancock wanted no part of this shit show) and pushed mediocre commanders beyond their capabilities (Burnside was pushed into the Fredericksburg debacle, Meade Hooker and Pope were cycled though like they were models on a fashion show cat walk) > > And as far as cultivating Military talent? Please. The best generals the Union had; Grant, Sherman, Thomas, McPherson came from the Western theater precisely _because_ it was considered a political backwater. They rose in spite of Washington’s political machinations not because of it. Lincoln bears a great deal of responsibility for that environment. > My overall position is; the Union had a tougher road to hoe than is supposed (as I said in my previous post), Lincoln was adroit at handling political turmoil, he made many foolish mistakes in the conduct of the war which in turn created much of that political turmoil. [Richmond is a hard road to travel, I believe . . .](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond_Is_a_Hard_Road) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/91 "2014-04-08T16:40:24Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > IIRC WillFarnaby leans highly libertarian. I really don’t understand the hatred that libertarians have for Lincoln. No one is more responsible for the end of slavery than Lincoln and you’d think he’d be celebrated for that fact and yet they pillory him. One extreme libertarian I knew on another message board celebrated John Wilkes Booth Day. Often libertarians defend the Confederacy. Does slavery not matter to these people? Some libertarians (and not they alone) appear to equate “liberty” with “local autonomy.” What they appear to hold against Lincoln is that no one is more responsible for the survival – and consolidation – of the Union. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/92 "2014-04-08T16:42:36Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Thanks to the rebellion of the slavemasters & their misled minions, the Union morphed into the Bringer of Freedom. Of course Lincoln went to war to save the Union–but that involved more than taxes. As the war dragged on, the Emancipation Proclamation followed–for several reasons. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > If this isn’t satire, I’m legitimately frightened right now. It is not satire, it is history. Be afraid. Be very afraid. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/93 "2014-04-08T16:44:34Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > The CSA needed more than just to be left alone. They needed to be able to expand to new areas . . . [Some of them wanted to expand **south,** believe it or not.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_the_golden_circle) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/94 "2014-04-08T16:45:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Could you please provide some kind of cite that demonstrates that libertarians don’t care about slavery? Thanks in advance. > > Regards, > Shodan Any libertarian defense of the Confederate cause should suffice, agreed? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/95 "2014-04-08T16:47:03Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Libertarianism has a long history of being associated with racism. As well, despite their protestations they are pretty much anarchists by another name . . . No, the anarchist tradition is different, and older, and more European, and closely associated with Marxism. Libertarians oppose the state because they see it as a threat to private property; anarchists oppose the state because they see it as a defender of private property. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/96 "2014-04-08T16:58:26Z")
One-pronged test: It was widely known at the time that eastern Tennessee was a hotbed of pro-Union feeling (as was the Piedmont area of Virginia, know known as West Virginia). Did the Confederacy allow those people to secede “back” to the Union? No, it sent Robert E. Lee into West Virginia (where he fared badly on his first campaign), and it never voluntarily relinquished its hold on eastern Tennessee. Both regions were pried away by military force. So it’s not a “Union wouldn’t allow secession…” question so much as it is a “neither side would allow secession…like the vast majority of nation-states in history.” ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/97 "2014-04-08T18:42:59Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Any libertarian defense of the Confederate cause should suffice, agreed? No. I have yet to hear any self-identified libertarian actively applaud the Confederacy. Denigrating Lincoln and the Union is not _ipso facto_ defending slavery, even if a Union defeat would have had that effect. A libertarian would have let the southern states go, and then helped as many slaves as possible escape or revolt. Give the rebels’ “property” guns, and then leave them to uphold their rights as best they may. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/98 "2014-04-08T18:58:03Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Denigrating Lincoln and the Union is not _ipso facto_ defending slavery, even if a Union defeat would have had that effect. But then that amounts to adjudging biggummint **worse** than slavery, and I fairly call that an apologia for slavery – and, in fact, one of those several apologia the slaveholders would have made and did make. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/99 "2014-04-08T19:03:00Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > No. I have yet to hear any self-identified libertarian actively applaud the Confederacy. Denigrating Lincoln and the Union is not _ipso facto_ defending slavery, even if a Union defeat would have had that effect. A libertarian would have let the southern states go, and then helped as many slaves as possible escape or revolt. Give the rebels’ “property” guns, and then leave them to uphold their rights as best they may. It’s easy to say that now when opposition to slavery is virtually universal. But I have strong doubts it would have been the libertarian position back in the 1850’s. Libertarians have always taken a strong stand on property rights - and that was the same stand slave owners were claiming. Abolitionists were the equivalent of the people who want to criminalize drugs or firearms - they wanted to make it illegal to own a certain type of property. And, of course, libertarians are strong opponents of these current movements to criminalize property. So I think if libertarians had been around in the 1850’s, their position would have been _“If you’re opposed to slavery, don’t own slaves. But don’t force your beliefs on the people who do want to own slaves.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477/100 "2014-04-08T19:08:04Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It’s easy to say that now when opposition to slavery is virtually universal. But I have strong doubts it would have been the libertarian position back in the 1850’s. > > Libertarians have always taken a strong stand on property rights - and that was the same stand slave owners were claiming. Abolitionists were the equivalent of the people who want to criminalize drugs or firearms - they wanted to make it illegal to own a certain type of property. And, of course, libertarians are strong opponents of these current movements to criminalize property. > > So I think if libertarians had been around in the 1850’s, their position would have been _“If you’re opposed to slavery, don’t own slaves. But don’t force your beliefs on the people who do want to own slaves.”_ The cornerstones of libertarianism are voluntary association, political freedom, and individual liberty. These are not reconcilable with slavery. If libertarians had been around in the 1850’s, their position would have been that slavery was a monstrous evil. What means they’d advocate to deal with it would vary greatly, everything from invasion to passive non-compliance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-civil-war-question/684477.md?page=6)