On Preservation of the Union at Any Cost

[rob63]

I'd like a show of hands.

Who here has the mental capacity to grasp that criticism of Lincoln, federal overreach, and the civil war is not equivalent to a moral defense of the confederates or slavery?

*raises hand*

Anyone else? Or are you all busy bowing down to the obvious Straw-man?

I am very critical of Lincoln myself. He did many things that I disagree with, and there are many that he later acknowledged were mistakes himself. However, I also note that he was thrown into a very difficult situation, considering that he walked into the office with a secession crises already underway, and I doubt that anyone else could have done better than he did and believe that most would have done much worse. He is an interesting man to study; if you think he was a great man you will find much to support your case, and if you think he was a tyrant you will also find much to support your case. I think the best explanation of Lincoln was made by himself: "I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me." April 4, 1864

Federal overreach was great, but such things are typical of civil wars. The most egregious examples, however, were the work of military commanders rather than Lincoln. He was constantly reigning them in. He also viewed many of his own actions as things that could only be done under his authority as commander-in-chief and that they would be invalid as soon as the war was over.

The CSA was all about slavery, and nothing else, according to their own words. That is not to say that every man who fought for the CSA was defending slavery, they enlisted for a variety of reasons, the biggest probably just being the thrill of it all. Heck, I wouldn't even condemn the ones who did enlist to defend slavery, they were a product of the times they lived in after all. Nonetheless, to defend the CSA today is defending slavery, wittingly or not, particularly since it is so easy to learn what they said about themselves.

Regarding the OP; I would agree that there is a strain of historians who go too far in white-washing everything that the North did and in attacking everything about the South to the point that they go off the deep end. Nonetheless, that does not excuse the nonsense that DiLorenzo puts out.

 

[steveh_131]

The CSA was all about slavery, and nothing else, according to their own words.

Where are you reading this? Karl Marx novels? Communist Weekly? Kirk Freeman?

The Articles of Secession for each state list multiple reasons for secession, and slavery was only one of them.

Nonetheless, to defend the CSA today is defending slavery

I haven't seen anyone here 'defending' the CSA, except in the sense that a lawyer might 'defend' the rights of a murderer. Murder is wrong, but the government must still be held to the constitution in prosecuting it.

 

[rob63]

Murder is wrong, but the government must still be held to the constitution in prosecuting it.

Well, I wish you luck in your endeavors. I think the Lincoln administration case may be a tough one for you though.

 

[wadcutter]

Yes, because that was the Cornerstone of the South. What Lincoln thought is irrelevant to a response to the Lost Cause religion.

Mr. Freeman:

With all due respect, Sir, you've spent years losing the argument on this forum, and others, because of your very simplistic position.

Let's say the South wanted to keep their slaves. Let's go further and say the South wanted to make everybody down there a slave. You still have not demonstrated that slavery created the authority for the North to invade the South and force it to return to the United States.

Mr. Freeman, Sir, why don't you simply state your position honestly and drop all the bad History you try to sell? It’s obvious that your bad History is a cover for your political theory.

I've read so many of your posts across several forums that I know your position is this:

I prefer large central governments to accomplish domestic and global purposes to which smaller governments would never agree. I prefer large governments to small governments, and I prefer any collective to the individual. I prefer a system in which the smaller must obey the greater. I do not approve of any system in which the smaller may, on its own authority and choice, resist the greater, even if the greater is acting improperly.

I believe that in absence of a large government our lives will be less comfortable, less safe and that our daily lives will be more chaotic and disordered. I believe individuals are better off living under a large government, and that out of respect for the benefits individuals receive from the government, citizens owe the government a reasonable space to operate, and citizens must accept without excessive complaint the occasional errors a government may commit. In no case, does a governmental error or a string of governmental errors create a moral imperative to dissolve the government. The government must be given as much opportunity as it requires to correct its errors and improve its practices.

I believe nobody should ever be allowed to consider disobedience of any law or to reorder or destroy any governmental hierarchy, as people must always be subservient to an authority above themselves. I do not want to live in a world where competing self-interests all govern equally and are ultimately the government, itself, so I prefer a system in which individuals are born into sovereign states and do not, themselves, create and give authority to a sovereign state. I want people to rely on the government for authority, and I do not want a government to have to rely on the people for authority.

I believe the Civil War was the greatest opportunity to teach the American people that they are not individually sovereign and that any rights they have are creations by the government and that these rights rely on the government for existence and protection. I am willing to accept the deaths of 750,000 people as a persistent lesson to future generations that happiness is found by accepting the government and that sorrow is ensured by attempting to leave it.

Because you believe this, Mr. Freeman, you do not believe the North needed any authority to invade the South. If you can blame it on slavery, you will, because that justification appeals to current sensibilities. If you didn’t have slavery, you would blame the war on Southern knitting circles, if that was all you had available to you. You’re coming at this from the ends justifying the means, and that’s why your positions are so inconsistent and make so little sense. You wanted the North to win so the U.S. could invade Vietnam or Iraq, 100 years later. Without the Civil War, you don’t get your ability to meddle globally.

You need to bury as quickly as possible any notion that the North might not have had justification for invading the South. You know that appealing to the inviolability of central government power only appeals to about 1/3 of the participants on a gun forum, and really offends a big portion of the remaining 2/3, so you hang everything on a legal but disfavored practice the South conducted, and you hide behind the Race Card and hope the current discussion is smothered.

I am researching whether you believe what you do because of corporatism. I am exploring whether you ultimately support the Civil War out of corporate greed. The northern corporations needed a single government from Maryland to California to ensure a consistent legal system in which to allow the northern industrial corporations to develop the burgeoning West and create corporate profits. A single governmental system favorable to northern industrial corporate interests in the West would have been very difficult to create if two countries were competing for the membership of the western states. An agrarian country might have very different plans for the West than an industrial country.

After the Civil War, the North didn’t really hang out in the South. It quickly turned most of its military and economic attentions to conquering the West, where the real money was to be made. The same heroes of the North went West and committed the same war crimes and terrorism on the Indians who stood in the way of economic expansion. Let us not forget that great Union general Phillip Sheridan who is said to have authored the line “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.”

I truly wonder how much of your support of the Civil War ultimately rests on money.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Let's say the South wanted to keep their slaves. Let's go further and say the South wanted to make everybody down there a slave. You still have not demonstrated that slavery created the authority for the North to invade the South and force it to return to the United States.

So now you are just making stuff up and claiming it support the Lost Cause religion?

Not surprised but that is not what happened. You have repeatedly been advised of the authority of the federal government and yet you choose to ignore it.

Just come out and say that you hate the Constitution and stand against it already.

After the Civil War, the North didn’t really hang out in the South.

I just don't . . . so, now you are saying that Reconstruction never happened and the Compromise of 1877 did not transpire?

I've read some whacko things on INGO, mostly inspired by comic book history of the Libertarians, but simply ignoring history is completely new.

The CSA was all about slavery, and nothing else, according to their own words.


Where are you reading this?

The words and actions of the Confederate government?

http://www.amazon.com/Look-Away-History-Confederate-America/dp/0743234995

Slavery was the Cornerstone of the CSA. Those who defend the CSA, defend slavery.

 

[rhino]

Both sides did their fair share or atrocities.
Sherman said war is hell then went on to prove it.
The victor does not usually punish those who helped them win.
Most of the battles were in the south so most of the damage was to the south.

The one fact not in dispute, the north won.

I disagree. As I see it, both sides (as in everyone) lost.

 

[rhino]

Because slavery is the be all and end all of the Civil War.

Do you actually believe it was that simple, or are you just arguing for fun?

 

[mbills2223]

Do you actually believe it was that simple, or are you just arguing for fun?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to rhino again.

 

[steveh_131]

Do you actually believe it was that simple, or are you just arguing for fun?

Your side lost, rhino. Your Lost Cause religion failed. You have no right to a beautiful slave.

 

[hornadylnl]

Your side lost, rhino. Your Lost Cause religion failed. You have no right to a beautiful slave.

I've come to the realization that the only way we'll ever get a conservative out of the republican primary is for all libertarians to throw vocal support towards the McCains, Romneys and Christies.

 

[wadcutter]

Slavery was the Cornerstone of the CSA. Those who defend the CSA, defend slavery.

Mr. Freeman:

This is your typical last line of defense on the matter when backed into a corner.

The questions you've tried 20 times to dodge do not primarily concern the South.

We're seeking justification for what the North did. The questions you've dodged ask what authority the North had to do what it did.

I don't see where you've offered a single credible defense of the North.

Kirk Defense 1: The South had slavery. Slavery was not illegal in the North, and the North did not even extend a single invitation to the South to free its slaves and avoid violence. Kirk loses Defense 1.

Kirk Defense 2: The South fired on Fort Sumter. Nobody was killed in the battle, and Lincoln was menacing very lethal and imminent force against a high density Southern neighborhood. Instead of protecting Charleston Harbor, Fort Sumter became the greatest threat to Charleston Harbor, and we all know that the North loved to kill innocent women and children to get its way. Did 400,000 Northerners really die to avenge a battle in which no Union solder was killed? This is just silly. Kirk loses Defense 2.

Kirk Defense 3: The South had no right to secede, so a war that killed 750,000 people was justified to force the South to rejoin the North. This defense is more silliness. People have the natural right to form whatever countries they desire, and a bar against secession was nowhere agreed to by the Southern States when they joined the Union. Further, the North abandoned diplomacy and chose force rather than pursue a diplomatic solution to keeping the Union together. Kirk loses Defense 3.

All of Mr. Freeman's public defenses of the North fail, but I suspect he has some private defenses that he doesn't want to share.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

We're seeking justification for what the North did. The questions you've dodged ask what authority the North had to do what it did.

We have told you this over and over. If you cannot read the Constitution, then I cannot help you.

If you want to pretend that the authority to put down insurrections does not exist, then you are better off at the comic book stores ranting to the other Libertarians.

 

[wadcutter]

We have told you this over and over. If you cannot read the Constitution, then I cannot help you.

If you want to pretend that the authority to put down insurrections does not exist, then you are better off at the comic book stores ranting to the other Libertarians.

This shall be known as Kirk Defense 4, or KIRK'S LAST STAND.

Kirk Defense 4: The North had the right to stop the secession of the South because the secession was an insurrection. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution permits the United States Congress to call forth the militia to suppress insurrections.

Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution specifically lists the activities a state is forbidden from doing:

"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.


No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.


No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."

Nowhere in Article 1, Section 10 is secession listed as a forbidden act of a state. As a matter of basic definition, a "secession" is not an "insurrection." The two words are distinct and have very different meanings, not the least of which is that violence is inherent in an insurrection, while a secession can be quite peaceful. The South tried to secede peacefully, but the North loaded cannonballs and pointed them at the South's residential areas.

Further, as a lawyer, Mr. Freeman knows the canons of statutory construction. Certainly, Mr. Freeman is familiar with Expressum Facit Cessare Tacitum "That which is expressed puts an end to that which is implied."* If Mr. Freeman contends that "secession" is somehow implied in the term "insurrection," the specificity of Article 1, Section 10 voids any arguments of implied bars he would dare to make. The states simply did not have any notice under the most basic forms of contract law that they were signing a one-way document when they ratified the Constitution. Springing such news on them through an expanded and novel use of a facially inapplicable clause is bad and dishonest constitutional lawyering and brazen judicial activism.

Kirk loses Defense 4.



*The Virginia and West Virginia Judicial Dictionary-digest: Words and Phrases ... - Fred P. Caldwell - Google Books

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As a matter of basic definition, a "secession" is not an "insurrection."

Delusional. This is so devoid of history that it must be found on INGO.

Secession of a state is the essence of an insurrection. Rebellion to the United States is an insurrection. See, e.g., Insurrection Act of 1807, Militia Act of 1792.

"That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. "

Militia Act of 1792 at §2.

You see when a state defies the laws of the United States of America, that is an insurrection and as such the Constitution, via duly enabled law, allows the President to stop the insurrection.

You are completely ignoring history and creating some alternative fantasy.

 

[actaeon277]

There are many in this discussion which state the only reason the South seceded was for the continuation of slavery and white supremacy. The South rejected the Corwin Amendment. If the reason for secession was just to keep slaves, then why would you reject ratifying a constitutional amendment which would have made slavery perpetual?

I listened to a presentation by Dr. Charles Roland. He is the Professor Emeritus in history at UK. He stated there were probably 10 causes for the War. Slavery was in the top 5, though not the number 1 reason.

Here is a bio on Dr. Roland if you're interested.

Charles P. Roland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could be wrong, but wasn't one of the contentions between the north and the south the tariffs on manufactured goods.
The north wanted strong tariffs, to develop their industries which at the time could not compete with foreign powers manufactured good's prices.
The south wanted weak tariffs. They exchanged cotton for manufactured goods. The north needed a small percentage of the cotton output, therefore they had to sell overseas. A high tariff means less return for cotton.

 

[rob63]

I don't even know why I bother, but just in case there is someone with an open mind reading this: South Carolina gave a declaration of the numerous causes that led them to secede. The entire text can be found here.

Here is a summary of the many and varied reasons that they listed:

1) The Northern states are refusing to return escaped slaves and the federal government isn't doing anything to force them to.

2) The Northern states are encouraging slaves to escape and the federal government isn't doing anything to stop them.

3) The Northern states are elevating former slaves to the status of citizenship.

4) The government is appointing judges that want to end slavery.

5) The Northern states have permitted the existence of abolitionist societies that want to end slavery.

6) Finally, they have elected a man President that has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,"

Yes, as you can see, they had a whole bunch of reasons, but none of them involve tariffs. You can also see how much they truly loved states' rights considering how first on their list of complaints is that the federal government isn't forcing the Northern states to return the escaped slaves. You can also see how much they loved individual liberties since they are also upset at the mere existence of voluntary abolitionist societies.

 

[jbombelli]

For arguments sake: why was slavery wrong?
this is not a race question because there were slaves of all races white included.

Lolwut? Is this a serious question?

 

[Compatriot G]

Lolwut? Is this a serious question?

I think you may misunderstand the question.

Slavery was a complicated issue in the 19th Century. It wasn't cut and dry. As I posted earlier, replace the word "slavery" with the word "abortion" and you get a better idea of the issue. Slavery had moral implications, economic implications and political implications. Abortion has the same implications today.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think you may misunderstand the question.

Slavery was a complicated issue in the 19th Century. It wasn't cut and dry. As I posted earlier, replace the word "slavery" with the word "abortion" and you get a better idea of the issue. Slavery had moral implications, economic implications and political implications. Abortion has the same implications today.

Slavery "wasn't cut and dry"? And how is abortion even related to the issue. Are you say that there is ever a time when the enslavement of a human being ISN'T wrong?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Slavery "wasn't cut and dry"? And how is abortion even related to the issue. Are you say that there is ever a time when the enslavement of a human being ISN'T wrong?

You've completely missed his point.