Neo-Confederate libertarians are not conservatives.

[TakeAStepBack]

The war could have been avoided by simply overturning the dred scott decision. But war was much more to the point. Because it was about consoolidation of federal power and perogative, not slavery. The true nature of the war was over removing the idea, through example, that states had the right to leave the union. This idea of State perogative needed to be removed once and for all. So that the federal government wouldn't have to contend with States again. Lincoln caused, and then won his war.

Cocksure, undermanned, underarmed, lacking infrastructure and integrity for an honorable cause, the confederacy died, as Jeff Davis said, of a theory.

Good point.

Had the Confederacy succeeded in the war, and won independence; they would not have lasted a decade. They utterly lacked any sort of industrial base. They had a poor infrastructure, as you noted, with no hope of developing further railroads without the aid of the industrial North. They faced a hostile Southern neighbor in Mexico - who would not have hesitated in seizing the opportunity to regain lost territory.

All of this begs the question of why the North did not simple let the South secede? It was doomed to failure and the South would have been crawling back sooner, rather than later.

Bad precedent.

Besides, you can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they siezed before Lincoln was inaugurated. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

Thanks for the admission. The war was about consolidating the federal governments power against the states. I appreciate you admitting that.

 

[paperview]

Good point.

Had the Confederacy succeeded in the war, and won independence; they would not have lasted a decade. They utterly lacked any sort of industrial base. They had a poor infrastructure, as you noted, with no hope of developing further railroads without the aid of the industrial North. They faced a hostile Southern neighbor in Mexico - who would not have hesitated in seizing the opportunity to regain lost territory.

All of this begs the question of why the North did not simple let the South secede? It was doomed to failure and the South would have been crawling back sooner, rather than later.

Bad precedent.

Besides, you can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they siezed before Lincoln was inaugurated. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

It is almost as if the see the confederates as robin hood fighting against a evil tyrant.....Except the confederates were not doing anything for the people. They were doing it to keep AMERICANS in bondage.

Four million of them. Not even classed as citizens. This includes Free Blacks who needed passes just to travel, prevented them from owning arms, and a whole arrays of Codes that denied them rights.

Just shy of 4 million owned, traded and sold as a farmer does a cow.

Never mind their wholesale stomping on First Amendment rights / Freedom of the press / Freedom of Speech for decades before the war - for the majority of those they did allow citizenship.

They were more authoritarian than the "tyrants" they rebelled against.

 

[paperview]

The war could have been avoided by simply overturning the dred scott decision. But war was much more to the point. Because it was about consoolidation of federal power and perogative, not slavery. The true nature of the war was over removing the idea, through example, that states had the right to leave the union. This idea of State perogative needed to be removed once and for all. So that the federal government wouldn't have to contend with States again. Lincoln caused, and then won his war.

Good point.

Had the Confederacy succeeded in the war, and won independence; they would not have lasted a decade. They utterly lacked any sort of industrial base. They had a poor infrastructure, as you noted, with no hope of developing further railroads without the aid of the industrial North. They faced a hostile Southern neighbor in Mexico - who would not have hesitated in seizing the opportunity to regain lost territory.

All of this begs the question of why the North did not simple let the South secede? It was doomed to failure and the South would have been crawling back sooner, rather than later.

Bad precedent.

Besides, you can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they siezed before Lincoln was inaugurated. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

Thanks for the admission. The war was about consolidating the federal governments power against the states. I appreciate you admitting that.

Here,

Keep yourself occupied.

 

[paperview]

Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

"...Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"

If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time,

He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.

Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether'

With malice toward none; with charity for all..."

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bad precedent.

Besides, you can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

Ah, so you are of the notion that everything and everyone is property of the federal government.

You do realize that at the time of the civil war, there was this notion that we were a free people?

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

No, legitimate assets must be returned - and compensation for the property offered.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they siezed before Lincoln was inaugurated. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

My point was that the war was a wasted gesture that cost too many lives and accomplished absolutely nothing.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

The instant jump to violence as a solution cost this nation dearly. It gained us nothing.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That smells a lot like defeat. I suppose we've exhausted the topic enough. To recap before I unsibscribe to Cork's thread.

- There is no such thing as a neo-confederate libertarian. At least not outside of the Circle K.
- Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist.
- Lincoln de facto declared the confederate states an independent entity when he proclaimed the blockade. Meanwhile began a campaign of aggression against said independent entity.
- Lincoln abused his power in ways only a tyrant would. Hence he was a tyrant (examples throughout the thread)
- The war was more than not, about federal power and perogative over the states.
- Fort Sumter was the only "battle" fought before Lincoln took office.
- SC commisioners were turned away from diplomatic solutions in DC over Sumter.
- The south wouldn't have survived another 20 years under their economic system regardless.
- The Union of the coutnries founding was destroyed by Lincoln and replaced with a despotic federal authority.


Good day, critters.

 

[thanatos144]

Bad precedent.

Besides, you can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

Ah, so you are of the notion that everything and everyone is property of the federal government.

You do realize that at the time of the civil war, there was this notion that we were a free people?

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

No, legitimate assets must be returned - and compensation for the property offered.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they siezed before Lincoln was inaugurated. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

My point was that the war was a wasted gesture that cost too many lives and accomplished absolutely nothing.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

The instant jump to violence as a solution cost this nation dearly. It gained us nothing.

Again the CSA fired the on the UNION and started the war...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Watch out. Corky's doing the repeater!

 

[DiamondDave]

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."

Lincoln was sworn to uphold a constitution that allowed slavery in any state that wanted it.. he did not wield constitutional power to overturn this.. the constitution was amended to end the horrid practice and it was enacted on the date I gave....

His EP, was in fact more rhetoric than anything legally binding.. and yes, it was good PR and a good ploy

Where in the constitution does it deny the president the power to free slaves?

Dear idiot asshole

The constitution does not grant all power than specifically limit.. it sets SPECIFIC and LIMITED powers and denies all others to the federal government and grants them to the states and individuals

The president DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO MODIFY THE CONSTITUTION HE IS SWORN TO UPHOLD.. there is an AMENDMENT process that is laid out that must be followed.. it was followed and the change came AFTER Lincoln's death... LINCOLN DID NOT FREE THE SLAVES... get it thru your thick, ignorant skull

 

[DiamondDave]

Yeah ... sure you did.

All according to that one revisionist history book you read (with someone helping you with the big words).

No one is buying your bill of goods.

I don't seem to remember anyone complaining about the closing of the Rand Paul monument.

Uh huh.. the constitutional amendment was not ratified on the date I gave and Lincoln was not bound by the constitution he swore to uphold (which allowed slavery to any state that wanted it)?? And Lincoln had the power to change the constitution all by himself??



Idiot

The 13th amendment was ratified in 1865. What does that have to do with anything? The constitution does not deny the president from freeing Americans in bondage.

Again, idiot, he does NOT have the power to CHANGE the constitution he is sworn to uphold... the constitution had to be amended to make slavery illegal in the nation...

 

[thanatos144]

Lincoln was sworn to uphold a constitution that allowed slavery in any state that wanted it.. he did not wield constitutional power to overturn this.. the constitution was amended to end the horrid practice and it was enacted on the date I gave....

His EP, was in fact more rhetoric than anything legally binding.. and yes, it was good PR and a good ploy

Where in the constitution does it deny the president the power to free slaves?

Dear idiot asshole

The constitution does not grant all power than specifically limit.. it sets SPECIFIC and LIMITED powers and denies all others to the federal government and grants them to the states and individuals

The president DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO MODIFY THE CONSTITUTION HE IS SWORN TO UPHOLD.. there is an AMENDMENT process that is laid out that must be followed.. it was followed and the change came AFTER Lincoln's death... LINCOLN DID NOT FREE THE SLAVES... get it thru your thick, ignorant skull

The Constitution demands that slavery remained intact?

 

[DiamondDave]

Where in the constitution does it deny the president the power to free slaves?

Dear idiot asshole

The constitution does not grant all power than specifically limit.. it sets SPECIFIC and LIMITED powers and denies all others to the federal government and grants them to the states and individuals

The president DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO MODIFY THE CONSTITUTION HE IS SWORN TO UPHOLD.. there is an AMENDMENT process that is laid out that must be followed.. it was followed and the change came AFTER Lincoln's death... LINCOLN DID NOT FREE THE SLAVES... get it thru your thick, ignorant skull

The Constitution demands that slavery remained intact?

Nice try.. the constitution can be and WAS amended... to eliminate slavery in this nation

That does not change the FACT that Lincoln did not have the power to override the constitution and change the constitution and he DID NOT FREE THE SLAVES... I gave the date wherein all slaves in the US were freed.. and that date was AFTER Lincoln's death

You lose... end of story... your myth is not fact

 

[JWBooth]

"It isn't so much that thanatoast is ignorant. It's just that he knows so many things that aren't so."
Reagan

 

[paperview]

Dear idiot asshole

The constitution does not grant all power than specifically limit.. it sets SPECIFIC and LIMITED powers and denies all others to the federal government and grants them to the states and individuals

The president DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO MODIFY THE CONSTITUTION HE IS SWORN TO UPHOLD.. there is an AMENDMENT process that is laid out that must be followed.. it was followed and the change came AFTER Lincoln's death... LINCOLN DID NOT FREE THE SLAVES... get it thru your thick, ignorant skull

The Constitution demands that slavery remained intact?

Nice try.. the constitution can be and WAS amended... to eliminate slavery in this nation

That does not change the FACT that Lincoln did not have the power to override the constitution and change the constitution and he DID NOT FREE THE SLAVES... I gave the date wherein all slaves in the US were freed.. and that date was AFTER Lincoln's death

You lose... end of story... your myth is not fact

You are correct presidents do not take part in the Amendment process, they do however use to bully pulpit to give it voice, to either support or reject - which has an affect on those who may or may not support it.

After Lincoln's reelection, he made passage of the 13th Amendment his top priority.

In his State of the Union address, after his reelection he told Congress:

“[T]here is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go, at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better?”

It was passed by both houses in January of 65, and then presented to Lincoln.

Here it is:



You see that there? On the right hand side?

Abraham Lincoln's signature.

He did something else no other President had done before - or since - to an Amendment that would be ratified: He signed it.

With that, and his Emancipation Proclamation, which *did* immediately freed tens of thousands of slaves, and inspired tens of thousands more to go to the North and take up arms against the South...

He is, and will forever be known as The Great Emancipator.

Whether you accept it or not.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The Great Tyrannical Masterbaiter.

 

[paperview]

I swear, some of these Lost Causers have all the maturity of stunted 8th Graders.

 

[paulitician]

Yes, we should all be 'Good Conservatives' like John Boehner, Mitch McConnel, John Roberts, and this OP.

Nah, i think i'll pass.

 

[JWBooth]

Yes, we should all be 'Good Conservatives' like John Boehner, Mitch McConnel, John Roberts, and this OP.

Nah, i think i'll pass.

All hail the omnipotent and omnipresent state.

Or not.

The silly bastard never did make a case for the mish mash of terms Neo-Confederate libertarians.

 

[paulitician]

Yes, we should all be 'Good Conservatives' like John Boehner, Mitch McConnel, John Roberts, and this OP.

Nah, i think i'll pass.

All hail the omnipotent and omnipresent state.

Or not.

The silly bastard never did make a case for the mish mash of terms Neo-Confederate libertarians.

My guess is that the OP is just your average confused Neocon/Progressive. But it's been a fun thread. Gotta give em that.

 

[eflatminor]

They dont care if there is slavery,

Libertarians that support slavery? Really? Care to point to an example?

abortion,

Actually, about half of libertarians are against abortion. It's the one issue (when life begins) that divides libertarians. But to the point, you're wrong about "They don't care".

drug abuse,

Given that drug abuse occurs under your status quo of illegality, perhaps it is you that doesn't care? Libertarians support consensual activity between adults, that is true, but we also support those that would have a problem with something like drugs to get the help they need...not be put in jail. Your method of outlawing drugs results in more drug abuse, not less.

So, wrong again.

hookers,

Substituted prostitution with drugs in the statement above. So yet gain, you are wrong.

crime, murder, rape, arson

Well now you just look stupid. ALL libertarians support the illegality of these non-consensual acts against others. Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you really this dumb?

Either, wrong again.

as long as they dont have to pay taxes to stop it. .

Libertarians are not against a criminal justice system, but then, everyone knows that.

Wow, does it hurt to be so damn wrong?

Thats not conservative that selfish like any other liberal

Someone needs a dictionary.