Was the America Civil War fought over slavery?

[Little_Nemo]

@RickJay

South Carolina was not a sovereign country and neither was the Confederacy; they had no right to take Fort Sumter, fire on it, or raise any objection to it whatsoever. It was a public work (a very expensive one) undertaken by the United States, maintained and operated by the United States, for the purpose of defending the United States, which Charleston was a part of.

Even if South Carolina was a sovereign country, it still didn’t have any right to claim property belonging to the United States. The attack on an American military base in 1861 was no different than the Japanese attack on an American military base in 1941; they were both acts of war.

[Bridget_Burke]

@tomndebb

meh

The selective quotes and “interesting” interpretations of events and declarations that DiLorenzo provides are textbook examples of polemics rather than legitimate explorations of history.
He is welcome to his beliefs, but he is not persuasive.

This article gives a bit more background than that cherry-picking hack DiLorenzo offers:

Now, who fired the first shot at Fort Sumter? Jefferson Davis authorized it. Yet he does not seem to exist, either, in DiLorenzo’s narrative…

The Fox letter (dated May 1, 1861) that DiLorenzo cites reads as follows:

I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground; while, by an accident, for which you were in no wise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent was, you were deprived of a war vessel with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprize.

I most cheerfully and truly declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort, have greatly heightened you, in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprize, of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man, of all my acquaintances, whom I would select.

You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.

Most of the letter deals with a mishap to Fox’s original plan. Clearly it is the last sentence that draws our attention, and all it suggests is that Lincoln saw the effort to relief Sumter as a win-win situation: either the fort would have been resupplied, prolonging the stalemate, or the Confederates would initiate hostilities. That’s different than saying he wanted war: he left that decision in Davis’s hands.

By citing DiLorenzo, our “Libertarian” has revealed himself as a neo-Confederate.

[WillFarnaby]

@Bridget_Burke

This article gives a bit more background than that cherry-picking hack DiLorenzo offers:

By citing DiLorenzo, our “Libertarian” has revealed himself as a neo-Confederate.

The idea of a Rothbardian neo-confederate is laughable. In any case, Dilorenzo’s writings are simply attacks on Lincoln from a non-interventionist perspective. He does nothing to suggest he supports the Confederacy. If attacking Lincoln makes you a neo-confederate, the North was full of confederates. I guess Lysander Spooner was a confederate?

Lol dig deeper than that, bud. Step your smear term game up!

In your author’s words Lincoln saw duping the confederates and proceeding with invasion as a “win”. Why the fuck do you think I attack Lincoln on this point? Thanks for the support.

[WillFarnaby]

@Little_Nemo

Even if South Carolina was a sovereign country, it still didn’t have any right to claim property belonging to the United States. The attack on an American military base in 1861 was no different than the Japanese attack on an American military base in 1941; they were both acts of war.

Wow, we are getting desperate aren’t we?

If the U.S. Was sitting in a Japanese harbor with a destroyer, would the Japanese be allowed to attack in your zany world? The ship is US property after all.

The confederates tried to buy US property in the South in order to maintain peace, but the butcher Abe Lincoln did not want peace.

[iiandyiiii]

@WillFarnaby

Wow, we are getting desperate aren’t we?

If the U.S. Was sitting in a Japanese harbor with a destroyer, would the Japanese be allowed to attack in your zany world? The ship is US property after all.

You mean the real world, in which US destroyers visit and stay in Japan due to past agreements very frequently? Yes, if Japan attacked a US destroyer, that would be a problem.

The confederates tried to buy US property in the South in order to maintain peace, but the butcher Abe Lincoln did not want peace.

The confederates attacked a supply mission to US troops on US property. They wanted war, and that’s why they attacked.

[Bridget_Burke]

@WillFarnaby

…Lol dig deeper than that, bud. Step your smear term game up!

In your author’s words Lincoln saw duping the confederates and proceeding with invasion as a “win”. Why the fuck do you think I attack Lincoln on this point? Thanks for the support.

“bud”? Sure, I’ll dig deeper.

When questioned about his involvement with the neo-Confederate League of the South, DiLorenzo claimed he’d only delivered a few lectures a few years back. Then he wrote an article defending their ideals against the “neocons”:

The League also makes the “outrageous” claim that “Southern culture is distinct from, and in opposition to, the corrupt mainstream American culture. Therefore, we stand for our own sublime cultural inheritance and seek to separate ourselves from the cultural rot that is American culture.” This is especially outrageous to neocons — and also to certain “libertarian” imposters — because it suggests that there are still people in America do not abide by the notion that the role of government in America is to force a uniform culture on the entire population…

Jefferson understood that if the day were ever to come when the federal government, under the auspices of the Supreme Court, were to be the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, then it would inevitably assert that there were in fact no limits at all. That day came in April of 1865 and led to the creation of an American state that would cause many of the founders — certainly Jefferson — to rebel. The League of the South understands this, which is why it also advocates peaceful secession as the only viable means of restoring a free society.

If there’s a Southern Culture, does this group believe it includes African-Americans? IF so, on what basis will they be allowed to remain in the New Confederacy?

You brought DiLorenzo into the argument. He’s a fellow-traveler with neo-Confederates. As far as history goes, he’s a Professor of Economics.

[Bridget_Burke]

My mouse is dying: Here’s the link to DiLorenzo’s article: The Dreaded 'S' Word by Thomas DiLorenzo

[RickJay]

@WillFarnaby

Wow, we are getting desperate aren’t we?

If the U.S. Was sitting in a Japanese harbor with a destroyer, would the Japanese be allowed to attack in your zany world? The ship is US property after all.

So wass Charleston, South Carolina.

[WillFarnaby]

@iiandyiiii

You mean the real world, in which US destroyers visit and stay in Japan due to past agreements very frequently? Yes, if Japan attacked a US destroyer, that would be a problem.

I’m talking about the world in 1941. The presence of “U.S. Property” in the form of a naval ship in a Japanese harbor would not have been a problem? If attacked, the U.S. would be justified in invading Japan? The poster had already gave up the goose and allowed sovereignty to South Carolina in his hypothetical, then proceeded to make a preposterous claim.

The confederates attacked a supply mission to US troops on US property. They wanted war, and that’s why they attacked.

I haven’t said otherwise, I made several claims.

1. Lincoln threatened war to protect property and tax revenue in his inaugural.
2. Lincoln duped the confederates into taking the first shot.
3. The attack on Sumter was justified.
4. the slaver confederates tried to buy US property but were rebuffed by a mass murderer.

[WillFarnaby]

@RickJay

So wass Charleston, South Carolina.

Not in the posters hypothetical. Read the posts, please.

[iiandyiiii]

@WillFarnaby

I haven’t said otherwise, I made several claims.

1. Lincoln threatened war to protect property and tax revenue in his inaugural.
2. Lincoln duped the confederates into taking the first shot.
3. The attack on Sumter was justified.
4. the slaver confederates tried to buy US property but were rebuffed by a mass murderer.

All of these claims are false, and based on opinion and interpretation rather than fact.

The “Lincoln is a mass murderer” meme is not only tone-deaf but incredibly disrespectful to black Americans. The Emancipation Proclamation, and the 13th and 14th Amendments, were largely driven by Lincoln. Even if you lay the death of every single slavery-supporter at his feet, those deaths were still worth it. Hell, I would have happily flipped a switch to kill every single slave owner in the South, just to free a single slave, if I had had that option.

No wonder so few black Americans ascribe to the libertarian philosophy… time and time again, libertarians have been their enemies.

[WillFarnaby]

@Bridget_Burke

“bud”? Sure, I’ll dig deeper.

When questioned about his involvement with the neo-Confederate League of the South, DiLorenzo claimed he’d only delivered a few lectures a few years back. Then he wrote an article defending their ideals against the “neocons”:

If there’s a Southern Culture, does this group believe it includes African-Americans? IF so, on what basis will they be allowed to remain in the New Confederacy?

You brought DiLorenzo into the argument. He’s a fellow-traveler with neo-Confederates. As far as history goes, he’s a Professor of Economics.

Oh now he’s a “fellow traveller”. Back-pedaling much? You also tried to smear me personally by calling me a neo-confederate, a claim you expectedly did not support.

He’s a self-proclaimed Rothbardian. As in anarchism, capitalism, property rights, and all that jazz… Dig deeper, bud.

He specifically praised the “ideal” of secession. Y’know like Ludwig Von Mises, that slaver of men we all hear about. Also he quoted the League, said it was outrageous to neocons and why it might be. You got anything stronger?

[Bridget_Burke]

@iiandyiiii

All of these claims are false, and based on opinion and interpretation rather than fact.

But DiLorenzo made those claims & he’s obviously Farnaby’s main source. Read more in The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War & Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe. Or just read the five-star comments at Amazon to see how entwined DiLorenzo’s version if “Libertarianism” is with anger about “The War For Southern Liberation.”

[iiandyiiii]

@WillFarnaby

Oh now he’s a “fellow traveller”. Back-pedaling much? You also tried to smear me personally by calling me a neo-confederate, a claim you expectedly did not support.

He’s a self-proclaimed Rothbardian. As in anarchism, capitalism, property rights, and all that jazz… Dig deeper, bud.

He specifically praised the “ideal” of secession. Y’know like Ludwig Von Mises, that slaver of men we all hear about. Also he quoted the League, said it was outrageous to neocons and why it might be. You got anything stronger?

He praised a white supremacist organization. You can make excuses all you want, but he was the one who made a decision to praise white supremacists.

[WillFarnaby]

@iiandyiiii

All of these claims are false, and based on opinion and interpretation rather than fact.

The “Lincoln is a mass murderer” meme is not only tone-deaf but incredibly disrespectful to black Americans. The Emancipation Proclamation, and the 13th and 14th Amendments, were largely driven by Lincoln. Even if you lay the death of every single slavery-supporter at his feet, those deaths were still worth it. Hell, I would have happily flipped a switch to kill every single slave owner in the South, just to free a single slave, if I had had that option.

No wonder so few black Americans ascribe to the libertarian philosophy… time and time again, libertarians have been their enemies.

Like Lysander Spooner? Was he incredibly disrespectful to black Americans? How about the disrespect you present to the brown people around the world whose death you facilitate as a bureaucrat in comfy American suburbia?

[WillFarnaby]

@iiandyiiii

He praised a white supremacist organization. You can make excuses all you want, but he was the one who made a decision to praise white supremacists.

Did he do so on the basis of their white supremacy?

[WillFarnaby]

@Bridget_Burke

But DiLorenzo made those claims & he’s obviously Farnaby’s main source. Read more in The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War & Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe. Or just read the five-star comments at Amazon to see how entwined DiLorenzo’s version if “Libertarianism” is with anger about “The War For Southern Liberation.”

How entwined are you with the mass murder of hundreds of thousands?

[RickJay]

@WillFarnaby

Not in the posters hypothetical. Read the posts, please.

I wasn’t referring to a hypothetical place. I am referring to Charleston, South Carolina, which is a real place. The CSA was not a sovereign country so I don’t care about the “hypothetical.”

[iiandyiiii]

@WillFarnaby

Did he do so on the basis of their white supremacy?

LOL. So the League of the South is great, except for that little thing of being white supremacists? Good luck defending white supremacists on all their other good qualities!

[WillFarnaby]

@RickJay

I wasn’t referring to a hypothetical place. I am referring to Charleston, South Carolina, which is a real place. The CSA was not a sovereign country so I don’t care about the “hypothetical.”

I was responding to the hypothetical, bud.