Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
The bigger the plantation, the more one stands to gain from it. The bigger and more plentiful the plantations in one particular state, the more that state stands to gain from it. If the states with the biggest of plantations were the first to secede, then it stands to reason that slavery was, indeed, a major factor, if not the deciding one. Alternatively, if the first states to secede had very few slaves or plantations, then that would easily be evidence that slavery or plantations were not a major reason for bailing out.
Uh huh. How come no non-slavery state seceded then?
Out of interest:
I have met this topic time and time again with libertarians; what I would like to know is, since the issue (the American Civil War) is apparently so important to so many libertarians (they bring it up themselves so often), I would have thought that "libertarian" mean wanting freedom for all --- and I would have thought that the fact of mass slavery, real slavery, would predominate in any calculations over the theory of states' rights. So I'ld like to know why libertarians always seem to be ... vocal on the states' rights issue, yet leave the fact of real slavery idlely dismissed?
And yes, this is a real question, not a rhetorical question; I really would like to understand the POV here more.
Last edited:
Because the non-slavery states were the manufacturing states whose coalitions had a majority of both houses of Congress.
I didn't bring it up. And when did any Libertarian state or imply that slavery was OK? You can be against slavery and still be for federalism.
Uh huh, you see it as a war between manufacturing and agriculture then? Or how? And Ohio was NOT a manufacturing state; neither was Wisconsin; nor was Maine; nor several other Unionist states.
No offence, but that doesn't really answer my question, and I really would like to understand.
Allow me to rephrase:
when discussing the ACW many libertarians are far more vocal about the states' rights issue than the slavery issue. Why is that so?
No, but manufacturing vs. agriculture did lead to most of the problems causing the Civil War, including slavery. Manufacturing used slaves for a short time (research that if you want some examples of mistreatment), but since the technology could be more easily applied to manufacturing they were quickly made obsolete. Also, manufacturing produced a lot of goods the south needed, and these goods had extensive protectionist tariffs placed on them. Then there's the whole federalism vs. nationalism thing, going all the way back to the very first day of the Constitutional debates.
But what reason would they have had to secede? There were slave states that didn't secede!
Because slavery is over and done with. The state's "rights" issue (I hate that phrase; states don't have rights, people do) is still with us and causing tons of problems. The 9th and 10th Amendments basically don't exist anymore.
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
Article 1, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution (Article 1 is the Bill of Rights):
Texas Constitution said:
It took a federal law to override that. There is nothing restricting an atheist or agnostic from a public position outside of public opinion now.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
I've actually shown more states that did cite slavery, than the (one? two?) you show that didn't.
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Well, that's true. The Northern Aggression was more over retaliation than slavery, I'll concede.
Oh, trust me, you would be amazed at what I know about that --- the most recent example would be present China, or WW2 Germany. But hey, let's get to the point.
Not true at all. Present China, for example. The question is when does wages costs outweigh capital investment costs. But let's get to the point.
My examples were to show you the whole notion of manufacturing versus agriculture simply WILL NOT DO as a supposed cause of the ACW. I believe you've just backed up my point --- the slavery states that stuck with the Union agreed to give up slavery.
In the USA, because of Lincoln and the ACW. Yet you attacked the Union; you try calling it the war of "northern aggression", and you ignored the slavery problem. That interests me. Why? Since you are a libertarian, I would have thought freedom mattered to you most, not states' rights. Yet you denounce the Union rather than the slavery states. Why?
Maybe that's the price you pay for having states who started the ACW in order to protect slavery. Contrary to your denunciation about "northern aggression", the South were the ones to start the shooting. In protection of slavery.
So please tell me, why do you and other libertarians I've heard concentrate so much on alleged "northen aggression" and simply don't talk about what started the ACW? Slavery? Why the lack of any denunciation of slavery states who started a war to protect their "special institution"?
Last edited:
I was speaking of the US.
No, they didn't. Not until after the Civil War. In fact, the last state to have legal slavery was Delaware.
They didn't start the war; they just seceded. The Union started the war by refusing to give up Fort Sumter. The Federal government can only occupy property in a state with that state's permission, and they no longer had it.
Uh huh.
Slavery ended in the USA as a direct result of the ACW and Lincoln. That's the fact.
Puh-leeeze, Shanek, "the enemy started the war by not surrendering".
Funny, but transparent.
The fact is, the South started the shooting; the South started the aggression by that, and the slavery.
Now will you finally answer my question or not, now put 3 times?
Why is denouncing the Union more important to you than denouncing the slavery that led directly to the ACW?
Last edited:
No, you haven't, and I will repeat the question to you till you anwer it.
Why is denouncing the Union more important to you than denouncing the slavery that led directly to the ACW?
Bollocks, but praise yourself if it makes you feel better -- but answer my question.
Shanek, you're funny.
You must regard yourself as the font of all wisdom. That doesn't worry me, as long as you answer my question finally.Codswallop; I have been very careful to avoid exactly that, and to keep to the track. Now answer my question already:
Why is denouncing the Union more important to you than denouncing the slavery that led directly to the ACW?
You're lying.
Already have.
From me:
Are you going to keep dishonestly saying I haven't answered your question when I have?
No, Shanek, you are. Please don't drama-queen yet again; I get sick of your drama-queening. But anyway, just deal with the point below, mmmkay?
Shanek, again you are projecting.
But never mind the bollocks, here's the question. You gave an evasive answer before, which you cut&pasted again; but you (dishonestly) left out that I had already answered that evasion of yours in another of my previous posts here.So, shanek, since you refuse to answer the question squarely, I'm going to add to it.
Please make sure to answer the added question!Shanek, why is denouncing the Union more important to you than denouncing the slavery that led directly to the ACW?
And since desegregation in much of the South and the end of denial of voting rights to blacks was only brought about in the 20th century by the upholding of the primacy of the USA-wide constitution against states's rights and their nasty little "special institutions", then why do you in effect denounce those exact constitutional rights upholding the Union, freedom, desegregation and, but of course, the end of slavery?
Last edited:
Gurder, I gave you my answer. SLAVERY IS OVER. But the Civil War was about so much more than that; it was about the power of the Fed over the states. As a result, we have things like the insane War on Drugs.
You have your answer. But you're not seeking answers; you're just seeking a flame war and trying to make yourself feel superior.
I'm done here.
You have your answer. But you're not seeking answers; you're just seeking a flame war and trying to make yourself feel superior.
I'm done here.