Neo-Confederate libertarians are not conservatives.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It seems to me, however, that the two go hand in hand, though they shouldn't have to. After all, the Revolutionary War started because the colonies seceded from the British. The Civil War was simply a failed revolution following the secession. However, we refer to one as a revolution and the other as secession. They were essentially the same thing, with the only difference being the outcome, which implies that winning a war somehow makes you right.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It seems to me, however, that the two go hand in hand, though they shouldn't have to. After all, the Revolutionary War started because the colonies seceded from the British. The Civil War was simply a failed revolution following the secession. However, we refer to one as a revolution and the other as secession. They were essentially the same thing, with the only difference being the outcome, which implies that winning a war somehow makes you right.

During the revolutionary war, the acts carried out by the colonists knew they were engaging to treason from the crown. They were not contracted, or partnered members of the englishman establishment. they were service members of a subsidy of the crown.

Secession of the southern states, argued over their constitutional right to secede from the union. Meaning they believed they had the inherent right to do so (an argument I would make on their behalf myself, and even Lincoln spoke of favorably...that is, as long as it wasn't against him and his "union"). it wasn't until after Lincoln's Civil War that secession was deemed unconstitutional via the supreme court. Sadly, hypocrisy doesn't seem to be time sensitive. We fought the crown only to turn into the crown years later.

And yes, the victors of war always make the assumption that their cause was the right one and that they were just in their actions. Even when there is clear evidence to the contrary.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Need more?

The first shots were fired in January of 1861.

Buchanan was President and he was trying to resupply Sumter.


Click to enlarge

The South fired upon the Union Steamship Star of the West

They took another ship and seized it: "The Marion."

Then converted her to a Man of War ship.
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." ; SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.

Star of the West

Note the date on the Harpers Weekly newspaper: January, 1861, linked above.

THE FIRST OF THE WAR.

WE publish herewith pictures of the United States steam-sloop Brooklyn, and of the steamship Star of the West, and of the steamship Marion, which three vessels figured so prominently in the movements of last week; and on page 37 we give a large plan of Charleston harbor, showing the forts, etc., together with a view of Fort Johnson. These pictures w ill enable our readers to realize what is going on in this most memorable contest of the present age.
On Wednesday morning, January 9, 1861, the

first shots were fired At daybreak on that morning at the steamship Star of the West, with 250 United States troops on board, attempted to enter the harbor of Charleston for the purpose of communicating with Fort Sumter

The people of Charleston had been warned of her coming and of her errand by telegraph. They determined to prevent her reaching Fort Sumter. Accordingly, as soon as she came within range, batteries on Morris Island and at Fort Moultrie opened on her. The first shot was fired across her bows ; whereupon she increased her speed, and hoisted the stars and stripes. Other shots were then fired in rapid

succession from Morris Island, two or more of which hulled the steamer, and compelled her to put about and go to sea. The accompanying picture shows the Star of the West as she entered Charleston harbor; the plan will explain the situation of the forts, and the position of the steamer when she was fired upon. The channel through which she passed runs close by Morris Island for some distance.
Fort Sumter made no demonstration, except at the port-holes, where guns were run out bearing on Morris Island.
​

They did this before Lincoln even set foot in the office. Before they had even all officially Seceded. An ACT OF WAR.

South Carolina seceded from the Union December 20th, 1860.

James Buchanan sent the Star of the West into seceded territory to re-supply Fort Sumpter on Confederacy lands in 1861. in March of 61, Lincoln took over office. The Fort bel;onged rightfully to SC, and the Union refused to surrender the territory. Which escalated after Davis sent commisioners to DC to negotiate diplomatically the release of Sumpter to its rightful owners. they were immediately rebuffed. Lincoln then sent another attempt at resupplying a fort that didn't rightfully belong tot he Union. Davis was left with no choice but to order the Surrender of the Fort from Anderson. He refused. The confederacy engaged in defending their rightful territory.

Lincoln then initiated war with the confederacy.

The South committed an Act of War with the firing on and seizing of Federal property.

And Buchanan was a pansy ass to not fulfill his duties when the Southtook claim to property that WAS NOT THEIRS.

South Carolina ceded all rights and claim to Sumter in 1836. Yes, 1836.

Here you go:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

And even if she hadn't, a state cannot just claim Federal property as it's own. Kentucky can't just decide to claim Fort Knox if it decided it wanted to secede. Not the way it works.

But never matter no mind. South Carolina DID cede the rights to Fort Sumter. It's right there in black and black and white.

And THEY started the war. Before Lincoln even stepped into office.

If they had the right to secede, they had the right to take their part of the Federal property with them. So the only way it is unjustifiable is if they had no right to secede. The Unionists gave up other Federal installations, but needed Ft. Sumpter as a manufactured provocation. It was just like the Tonkin Gulf Incident or the sinking of the Maine.

 

[PrometheusBound]

The question of secession was settled at the Convention.


At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."
​

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar | Yale Law School

Just another example of how worthless the Constitution was. The Tenth Amendment gave the states too much power and made them each enemies of the majority. If the Federalists didn't want secession, they should have come up with a document that was less divisive.

Before this, New England threatened secession, the "State of Franklin" threatened it, the Midwest felt alienated, and so did Kansas. Shays's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, John Brown and probably many unpublicized discontents. Instead of babbling about how all democracies fail and only an oligarchic republic is stable, the Founding Fodder should have found a way to bring all sections of the country together. A better transportation system, a standing military putting troops from all sections together, censorship of Abolitionism, etc., might have done the job that these lawyers for the 1% pretended they were doing. How about if the people ruled instead of bickering fraternity houses?

 

[PrometheusBound]

The Abolitionists had no social conscience. They despised the White working class. These bribed preachers were hired by the Republican plutocrats to provoke the South into seceding, getting rid of anti-tariff votes. As usual with Greedheads, they then became uncontrollable and decided that they could easily win the war and seize Southern assets, including using grateful freed slaves as cheap and loyal scab labor.

A desperate Lincoln married a rich girl, who converted him into a tool of the Northern industrialists and the Robber Baron railroads. The South had also opposed paying taxes for national infrastructure.

 

[thanatos144]

What! No mention of the CR of 64? So that wasn't historically important!

That can mean only this: That Ron Paul and other Southern Conservatives, have hijacked the Libertarian Party!

Ron Paul would be a southern Democrat not a conservative.

The Libretardian pope, Paul II, is a Rubber Ducky from Kain't-tucky.

Rand hasn't been in office long enough for me to be sure he is as much as a lying sack of shit his father is.

 

[thanatos144]

Nope, they weren't traitors according to the definition in the Constitution. If they were, then why weren't they all hung? Lincoln's actions as president, on the other hand, do fit the definition of "treason." He made war on states of the union. He's a traitor.

Also, Northerners were also "slavers." So neither of your distinctions is valid.

Where does it say in the constitutions states have the right to cause a civil war to keep slaves again?

They didn't cause a Civil war, so your question is a straw man.

You ignoring historical fact doesn't change the truth you idiot.

 

[thanatos144]

Notice how the Libertarians are REVISING history to make slave owning traitor democrats something they clearly were not?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Sup, Cork? It seems we've given you too much historical fact. The cartoons you acquired your historical knowledge from, were meant for entertainment purposes or for young minds to begin grasping concept.

As it turns out, Cork. Lincoln wasn't an abolitionsit. He was, a corporatist of the times though. Also a tyrant and unilaterally declared war without a declaration. That's your hero, Cork. Bask in teh glow.

 

[thanatos144]

Sup, Cork? It seems we've given you too much historical fact. The cartoons you acquired your historical knowledge from, were meant for entertainment purposes or for young minds to begin grasping concept.

As it turns out, Cork. Lincoln wasn't an abolitionsit. He was, a corporatist of the times though. Also a tyrant and unilaterally declared war without a declaration. That's your hero, Cork. Bask in teh glow.

You have given me nothing but revisions made by those who thinks history is malleable. It isnt. Your romantic ideal that the UCA was some fight for states rights is nothing more then fantasy. They wanted a war. They started a war. They lost the war. I know why it is so attractive to young libertarians because the CSA like them was a selfish movement. How you all try and rewrite history shows your democrat roots as well.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So, Lincoln was an abolitionsit then, right Cork?

You fucking flaming dolt.

Stock the beer cooler.

 

[thanatos144]

So, Lincoln was an abolitionsit then, right Cork?

You fucking flaming dolt.

Stock the beer cooler.

Seeing as he actually freed the slaves you stupid fuck I would say he was the ultimate abolitionist.

 

[DiamondDave]

So, Lincoln was an abolitionsit then, right Cork?

You fucking flaming dolt.

Stock the beer cooler.

Seeing as he actually freed the slaves you stupid fuck I would say he was the ultimate abolitionist.

Actually.. no action he did, did anything of the sort..

This is yet another 'remember fondly the dead president' myth

 

[thanatos144]

So, Lincoln was an abolitionsit then, right Cork?

You fucking flaming dolt.

Stock the beer cooler.

Seeing as he actually freed the slaves you stupid fuck I would say he was the ultimate abolitionist.

Actually.. no action he did, did anything of the sort..

This is yet another 'remember fondly the dead president' myth

I am sorry you saying the emancipation proclamation doesn't exist?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So, Lincoln was an abolitionsit then, right Cork?

You fucking flaming dolt.

Stock the beer cooler.

Seeing as he actually freed the slaves you stupid fuck I would say he was the ultimate abolitionist.

So, what you're saying is, you don't know what an abolitionist is?

We knew that already, Cork.

 

[DiamondDave]

Seeing as he actually freed the slaves you stupid fuck I would say he was the ultimate abolitionist.

Actually.. no action he did, did anything of the sort..

This is yet another 'remember fondly the dead president' myth

I am sorry you saying the emancipation proclamation doesn't exist?

It was a speech.. not an action of government....

The slaves were freed AFTER Lincoln's death
December 6, 1865

Game, set, match, championship

Go fuck yourself

 

[thanatos144]

Actually.. no action he did, did anything of the sort..

This is yet another 'remember fondly the dead president' myth

I am sorry you saying the emancipation proclamation doesn't exist?

It was a speech.. not an action of government....

The slaves were freed AFTER Lincoln's death
December 6, 1865

Game, set, match, championship

Go fuck yourself

LOL you will go to any length huh? LOL Are you saying a executive order isn't legal? Because my ignorant friend that's what it was. Then it was made absolute law in 1865 with the 13th amendment. I know you and many here want Lincoln to be some evil bastard that did nothing good but the fact is He kept this country together and freed slaves which is not evil. The Confederates on the other hand did nothing that was redeemable other then surrendering. I mean lets look at this some more shall we? Did Lincoln demand confederates to be tried for treason or any crimes after the war? Seems something a tyrant would do right? The CSA is a blot on american history that should always be seen as a shameful period. They caused the deaths of more Americans then any war ever.

 

[paperview]

Actually.. no action he did, did anything of the sort..

This is yet another 'remember fondly the dead president' myth

I am sorry you saying the emancipation proclamation doesn't exist?

It was a speech.. not an action of government....

The slaves were freed AFTER Lincoln's death
December 6, 1865

Game, set, match, championship

Go fuck yourself

A speech?
No, It was an Executive Order. [EO #95 to be exact)

It did have the effect of immediately freeing thousands of slaves.

It was also a brilliant tactical move in that at that point, it became a war about slavery for the Union, made it more difficult for England to recognize the Confederacy (no country had recognized the CSA), and gave major incentives for blacks to escape and fight for the Union, announcing they would be accepted into the ranks of Army and Navy (by the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of Colored Troops fought for the Union)...

and it completely transformed the character of the war.

It was a hella more than "a speech."

 

[DiamondDave]

I am sorry you saying the emancipation proclamation doesn't exist?

It was a speech.. not an action of government....

The slaves were freed AFTER Lincoln's death
December 6, 1865

Game, set, match, championship

Go fuck yourself

LOL you will go to any length huh? LOL Are you saying a executive order isn't legal? Because my ignorant friend that's what it was. Then it was made absolute law in 1865 with the 13th amendment. I know you and many here want Lincoln to be some evil bastard that did nothing good but the fact is He kept this country together and freed slaves which is not evil. The Confederates on the other hand did nothing that was redeemable other then surrendering. I mean lets look at this some more shall we? Did Lincoln demand confederates to be tried for treason or any crimes after the war? Seems something a tyrant would do right? The CSA is a blot on american history that should always be seen as a shameful period. They caused the deaths of more Americans then any war ever.

Are you saying that there were not slaves between the EP and the actual action of government??? The President, unlike what you or Lincoln wanted, is not a wielder of absolute power... the slaves, in fact, were not truly freed until the federal government took its complete legal action

The MYTH that Lincoln freed them, runs rampant with the ignorant

Lincoln was indeed a frequent violator of the constitution... and by doing such can be labeled ad tyrannical.. and should not be held in some mythical high regard like many ignorant people do...

Now.. I did not defend any stances or actions of the confederacy... and I did not throw any support of the horrendous act of slavery.. I simply pointed out that your myths are not facts

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The unilateral war without a declaration, the suspension of habeas corpus, arrest warrants for a justice, confiscation of property and The Confiscation Acft of 1862, were also brilliant tactics.