-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The resignation of Jack Hunter, the social-media director of Sen. Rand Paul (R, Kentucky), also known by the moniker “Southern Avenger,” has brought to the surface a not insignificant minority who identify themselves as libertarians. This minority defends the Old South, the Southern cause, and the Confederacy. These Neo-Confederate libertarians claim to be anti-slavery and their arguments are a case study in cognitive dissonance.
Timothy Sandefur (pdf) gives lie to any notion that states have a “right” to unilateral secession:
Since the Constitution is a law binding the People, and not a league of states, states have no authority to intervene between the people and the national government. If the people of a state wish to leave the union, they may not do so unilaterally, but must obtain the agreement of their fellow citizens—or they must rebel in a legitimate act of revolution.
Sandefur also notes that the Declaration of Independence imposes harsh restrictions on those seeking a legitimate act of rebellion. The right to throw off a government can only be exercised after “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism.” The Confederacy was formed to violate rights, especially the right to self-ownership, not secure them.
The Confederate states were motivated to secede by the desire to maintain slavery. In their Declarations of Causes, four southern states, South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Mississippi, make clear that abolition of slavery was their primary reason for secession. The Confederate Constitution stated: “No law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” One cannot rationally justify Confederate secession on morals grounds while ignoring the great evil that such a secession intended to preserve.
In the postbellum South racial dominance was practiced unashamedly. “State’s Rights” became the rallying cry whenever the Federal Government insisted on adherence to the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The right of association and property owner’s rights were a common smokescreen used to defend Jim Crow, southern apartheid, laws. Today, “voter fraud” allows politicians cover when African-American voters are disenfranchised. The perversion of these concepts to scam voters into supporting the elite white power structure should not be tolerated.
The right to have your children attend a neighbor school was invented when the Supreme Court found segregated schools unconstitutional and busing was the solution. Today, taxpayer funding of private academies through voucher programs seeks to circumvent the 14th Amendment restrictions.
One cannot rationally support the Confederacy while condemning slavery. The raison d’être for the Confederacy was slavery. If one condemns slavery, then one condemns those who practiced it and sought to preserve it. One cannot simultaneously support the Southern state’s right to secede from the Union while supporting the denial that right to the individuals in those states. One cannot endorse the claim that secession was supported by a majority of the population when 40% of that population is not allowed to participate in the decision.
H/T: Ilya Somin, Jacob Levy, Jonathan Blanks, Jason Kuznicki, Randy Barnett, Conor Friedersdorf, Corey Robin, Massimo Pigliucci.
Nal: “I said Lincoln had a justification. I never said I agreed with it. Nice try but the readers here have more comprehension than you do.”
Doesnt matter! You DEFEND Lincoln for it. You’re not giving the South a free pass for slavery, ARE YOU??? Even though they were doing NOTHING WRONG Constitutionally.
“The Confederacy you love had lots of justifications for slavery. I don’t agree with their justifications either.”
But the SOUTH didnt start a WAR and INVADE OTHER STATES over it!!! You also say the South committed TREASON, but you dont hold ANY blame over Lincoln AT ALL.
Larry,
I said Lincoln had a justification. I never said I agreed with it. Nice try but the readers here have more comprehension than you do. The Confederacy you love had lots of justifications for slavery. I don’t agree with their justifications either. You didn’t use enough exclamation points.
Nal: “This is about whether Lincoln could justify slavery. He justified it by putting the preservation of the Union first. You and I may not agree with this justification, but it still doesn’t show he “loved slavery”. It does show he loved the Union more than he hated slavery.”
Ladies and gentlemen……Nal has ADMITTED there is at least ONE JUSTIFICATION FOR SLAVERY. To “save a Union”. You heard it here first people. The very man who wrote an article condemning libertarians for supporting slavery is ADMITTING THERE IS A JUSTIFICATION FOR SLAVERY!!!!
UN-F—–KING-BELIEVABLE!!!!
phb51——most of your explanations were about race and slavery and didnt even actually address WHY. Plus, youre WAY too late to the game. Most of what you did address was answered by myself in 100 other posts on this thread. Im not going to re-type them. Since you’re late to the game, YOU do the reading.
But I WILL address a few that weren’t mentioned earlier:
33. Illegally blockading ports. It’s called suppressing an illegal rebellion.
WRONG. The North blocked the ports BEFORE the firing at Ft. Sumter.
34. Illegally suspending habeas corpus.” Ibid.
WRONG. The President ALONE cannot suspend habeas corpus. That has to be done by CONGRESS. Lincoln did it HIMSELF—-hence ILLEGAL.
19. Supporting a conscription law.” It’s called the draft. I wish we had one now.
Yeah, you know WHY Lincoln needed a draft?? Because after the EC was issued, many Union soldiers left the war, defected to Canada and were ANGRY when they thought Lincoln was fighting for slaves (he really wasnt).
If you want a draft so bad, will you be the first in line to enlist??
But I do commend you for making the attempt——which is way more than I can say for all the other buffoons that constantly IGNORED them, and for the two morons that thought they were QUESTIONS.
**Libertarianism And The Confederacy
Published 1, July 27, 2013 Constitutional Law , Politics 548 Comments
-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger **
David,
I truly believe you should have titled this piece:
Obama & the rest of his American hatin trash Democratic Party… the ole KKK / Wallst/London Friends join the Confederacy!
**Charlie Rangel: Tea Party Is ‘Same Group’ Of ‘White Crackers’ Who Fought Civil Rights**
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/charlie-rangel-tea-party-is-same-group-of
Screw Rangel for stirring up Sheeet, I’ve got to live & deal with all these diverse groups of people here all the time. The last thing any of us need is these Aholes stirring that crap back up for the amusement of the Wallst Banker sheeets.
Ask yourselves, what happened & what did the Wallst/City of London Banking Trash do after the US Civil War?
The glided age of the Robber Barons anyone?
What are those same Robber Barons up to today? More of the same type slavery with a twist, it’s now everyone!
Living here in Oklahoma around every kind of race there is it’s plain as heck to me, Wallst Robber Barrons are totally insane & would BBQ everyone/anyone/any race even their own mother for the right $$$.
BTW, Larry, I don’t like your Flag or your argument, maybe you can fix both?
If you ‘re lookin for a flag to die for I might suggest one with a beaver drinking a beer on it.
Larry,
Do you have a point? You have written a lot of words, many of them insults and personal attacks against regular users on this blog, but as far as I have seen, you have not shared what you hope to accomplish. Your point is?
I know this is going to be hard, but try to explain what your goal is without relying on logical fallacies and factual impossibilities.
Larry:
Because you said his motivation was “love of slavery.”
This is about whether Lincoln could justify slavery. He justified it by putting the preservation of the Union first. You and I may not agree with this justification, but it still doesn’t show he “loved slavery”. It does show he loved the Union more than he hated slavery.
That may have been the design, but the Congress could pass an Amendment that repealed Corwin and when it is ratified, the Supreme Court would make the final decision. The Supreme Court may well find that Corwin, an unamendable amendment, violated the framer’s conception of the Constitution.
An amendment that gave the President the authority to abolish slavery is another way of negating Corwin.
An amendment that provided for a referendum of the people to abolish slavery is another way of negating Corwin.
Yet they embedded it in the Confederate Constitution:
“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
Yes it was, because most Northern states forbid the owning of slaves.
Larry,
This is probably a fool’s errand, but I will offer responses to the first half of your list. You (or whoever originally drafted this stuff) repeat yourself a lot, so I don’t see much point in finishing all 64.
“1. Saying contradictory things before different audiences.” Not as if you have never done anything similar.
“2. Opposing racial equality.” Lincoln’s priciple aim was to preserve the Union. Insofar as the Constitution itself protected slavery, candidate Lincoln recognized that he could not hope to preserve the Union by seeking to abolish slavery. What he did oppose was extending it to the western territories. This was very radical from the Southern point of view as it meant there would be no new slave states. You can read all about this in Lincoln’s famous Cooper Union speech.
“3. Opposing giving blacks the right to vote, serve on juries or intermarry while allegedly supporting their natural rights.” This appears to be an extension of #2 above, so I will refer you to my previous answer.
“4. Being a racist.” Ever hear of forty acres and a mule?
“5. Supporting the legal rights of slaveholders.” Again, his primary goal was to preserve the Union.
“6. Supporting the American System or mercantilism as his primary political agenda: national bank, high tariff, and internal improvements.” The tariffs you appear to refer to preceded Lincoln and were signed into law with bipartisan support by Presiden Buchanan. Otherwise, I don’t see what you have to complain about.
“7. Supporting a political economy that encourages corruption and inefficiency.” Nothing much more corrupt or inefficient than slavery.
“8. Supporting a political economy that became the blueprint for modern America.” This is an extension of # 6. All I can say is that there has been 150+ years of history since Lincoln and a whole lot of people have had their say in what represents “modern America”. I don’t think you can blame it all on Lincoln, regardless of whether you think he was right or not.
“9. Being a wealthy railroad lawyer.” So, now he’s a bad guy because he was good at his job?
“10. Never defending a runaway slave.” I have no idea how many opportunities he had to do any such thing. As you assert, most of the railroads he represented were not underground.
“11. Defending a slaveholder against his runaway slave.” No doubt you would now prefer that Lincoln destroy his legal practice, his family’s welfare and political opportuinites by undertaking myriad fugitive slave cases pro bono. History would doubtless be very different as a result. We might even still be litigating fugitive slaves. Meanwhile, please reread the Cooper Union speech.
“12. Favoring returning ex-slaves to Africa or sending them to Central America and Haiti.” I think Ex-Slaves is the opertive term. Sounds to me as if he was seeking some form of compromise.
“13. Proposing to strengthen the Fugitive Slave law.” Will you puleeeeaaassse read that Cooper Union speech?
“14. Opposing the extension of slavery in the territories so that “free white people” can settle there and because allowing them to become slave states would dilute Republican influence in Congress because of the three-fifths rule.” Okay, you really need to read that Cooper Union speech.
“15. Opposing black citizenship in Illinois or their right to immigrate to that state.” If I am not mistaken, this is another twist on the fugitive slave business. Citizens of the U.S. could obviously move from one state to another, even slave states, even former slaves.
“16. Failing to use his legendary political skills to achieve peaceful emancipation as was accomplished elsewhere–Lincoln’s war was the only “war of emancipation” in the 19th century.” This is similar to blaming the Fire Department for the fire. Who was it that fired on Ft. Sumter?
“17. Nullifying emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia early in the war.” Again, trying to preserve the Union, that is the goal.
“18. Stating that his primary motive was saving the union and not ending slavery.” And this is bad because?
“19. Supporting a conscription law.” It’s called the draft. I wish we had one now.
“20. Sending troops into New York City to quell draft riots related to his emancipation proclamation, resulting in 300 to 1,000 deaths.” Ever seen a riot? Ever seen looting? Lynching, Firebombing?
“21. Starting a war that took the lives of 620,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians and caused incalculable economic loss.” See the response to Q. 16. Also, did you know that over 100,000 emancipated slaves and other African Americans fought on the Union side?
“22. Being an enemy of free market capitalism.” I guess that is because, according to you, he supported slavery. Cooper Union, please.
“23. Being an economic illiterate and espousing the labor theory of value.” The LTV was first proposed by Adam Smith, not Karl Marx, as you seem to imply. Either way, Lincoln could hardly have been an economic illiterate if he knew of and supported the theory.
“24. Supporting a disastrous public works project in Illinois and continuing to support the same policies oblivious of the consequences.” Where to begin? The failure of the Illinois public works projects can be directly traced to the various bank failures of the pre-civil war era which were largely brought on by the Jacksonian hatred of central banks and a uniform regulatory system. This particular argument dates back to Hamilton, Jefferson and the first Congress. I take it you are a Gold Bug. How’s that working for you?
“25. Conjuring up a specious and deceptive argument against the historically-recognized right of state secession.” Obviously, since it took 3/4ths of the States to approve the Union, nothing less than 3/4s could conceivably dissolve it.
“26. Lying about re-supplying the feds tax collection office known as Fort Sumter.” I don’t care.
“27. Refusing to see peace commissioners from the Confederacy offering to pay for all federal property in the South.” The goal was to preserve the Union, not sell it in a garage sale.
“28. Refusing to see Napoleon III of France who offered to mediate the dispute.” You mean Emperor Napolean, that great supporter of republican democracy? Meanwhile, the goal is to preserve the Union, not negotiate with dictators over its fate.
“29. Provoking Virginia to secede by taking military action against the Deep South.” Remind me again, who fired on Ft. Sumter?
“30. Supporting a tariff and other policies that systematically redistributed wealth from the South to the North, causing great consternation in the South.” As I said in the response to # 6 above, there were tariffs passed that affected the South before Lincoln became president which had bipartisan support and was encouraged and signed by president James Buchanan, a Democrat. Lincoln could not have imposed tariffs on the South if he wanted to because the secession had already began when he became president.
“31. Invading the South without consulting Congress.” Again, who attacked Ft. Sumter?
“32. Illegally declaring martial law.” It’s called suppressing an illegal rebellion.
“33. Illegally blockading ports.” Ibid.
“34. Illegally suspending habeas corpus.” Ibid.
Whew.
pbh
Pbh51,
Kudoes to you, Larry loses again. A bravura performance!
Come on guys, at LEAST make this a little challenging.
Nal: “Support for the Confederacy and condemnation of slavery”.
I absolutely agree with this. And I’m not ashamed of it. It’s a LOT better than YOUR conflicting cognitions…Support for the Union and support for a dictator (Lincoln). The 68 facts I posted CLEARLY display he was a dictator. This is why everyone simply chooses to ignore them.
“You’re arguing from ignorance. You haven’t shown that was Lincoln’s motivation.
Why does his motivation MATTER? He CLEARLY stated in his inaugural he wanted slavery to be in the Constitution FOREVER. Are you saying there is now JUSTIFICATION for wanting slavery embedded into the Constitution?? If slavery is bad, and we all agree it is——why does MOTIVATION matter? The only way you can care about motivation is if it could be JUSTIFIED. Are you saying slavery can be JUSTIFIED Nal???? Are you??
“Lincoln’s motivation could have been to end the secession crisis or at least keep it from getting worse.”
LOL, you mean by stating he supported Corwin and wnated to keep it enshrined in the Constitution FOREVER when he had already stated he didnt care about slavery within the same inaugural address?? Just stating he wasn’t going to intefere with slavery would have been enough to quell secession….but Lincoln went a LOT further and stated he supported Corwin. Stop embarrassing yourself Nal. YOu can’t get out of this jam you’re in.
“Amendments get repealed, they’re not forever.”
Nope. Wrong, not Corwin. The amendment ITSELF was designed to NEVER let the amendment be altered. Lincoln even SAID THIS in the inaugural address!! Wikipedia says “It would forbid subsequent attempts to amend the Constitution to empower the Congress to “abolish or interfere” with the “domestic institutions” of the states, including “persons held to labor or service” (a reference to slavery).
“The Corwin Amendment also didn’t prevent states from abolishing slavery.”
The Confederates were committed to independence, so they felt they didnt need Corwin.
“More love for slavery could have been shown by introducing an Amendment that made it a Constitutional right to own slaves.”
No amendment was needed for this. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 ruled that the federal government had NO AUTHORITY to regulate slavery in the federal territories. This is why Lincoln said he had NO AUTHORITY to interfere with southern slavery in his inaugural address. God I’m annihilating you guys.
Anything else for me to refute? This isn’t even HARD.
Larry:
come on, dont call Mike that. That isnt right and it only makes you look psycho.
Mike Spindell: “I think you might be a traitor to the United States of America posing as a libertarian……am I right?”
Because I oppose a President who ACTUALLY committed treason according to the Constitution? (Art 3, sec 3 “Levying war against the states”) You’re hilarious Mike. I don’t think Thomas Jefferson would disagree with me. After all, he’s the one that SUPPORTS secession. You remember him, right? He’s the ones whose quotes you IGNORED.
“And when did you stop beating your wife, that is if you had a wife and you hadn’t driven her out of your home already in frustration with your obsession?”
And what issue does THIS address? None of them. Yep, no ad hominem attacks there! Turley must be so proud that his cast of idiots have to stoop to make 2nd grade “Your mama” remarks. Good job Mike!!!
“Answer these questions please and I may just respond to your 68 questions……or maybe not.”
They weren’t QUESTIONS you old, pathetic f–k. They were facts about him!
Larry:
You’re arguing from ignorance. You haven’t shown that was Lincoln’s motivation. Lincoln’s motivation could have been to end the secession crisis or at least keep it from getting worse. Amendments get repealed, they’re not forever. The Corwin Amendment also didn’t prevent states from abolishing slavery.
More love for slavery could have been shown by introducing an Amendment that made it a Constitutional right to own slaves.
Support for the Confederacy and condemnation of slavery. (I’m just assuming the second one.)
Larry,
What?
“The LP is the Libertarian Party, genius.”
No one had previously mentioned the party, genius. The word “party” wasn’t even mentioned in Nal’s article, and that’s what Gene was referring to when he said LP.
Larry,
I think you might be a traitor to the United States of America posing as a libertarian……am I right? And when did you stop beating your wife, that is if you had a wife and you hadn’t driven her out of your home already in frustration with your obsession? Answer these questions please and I may just respond to your 68 questions……or maybe not.
Wikipedia says that cognitive dissonance is “the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions.”
Exactly what ARE my two or more conflicting cognitions, Nal???
Nal; “If the Emancipation Proclamation doesn’t apply to the North, it’s not because “By 1840, virtually all blacks in the North were free,” it’s because Lincoln “loved slavery.”
“Virtually all” is not ALL. That means some are still there—and those slaves were NOT freed as a result of the EC—-either the ones in the South, since Lincoln had no authority there. Lincoln “freeing” the south (when he had NO AUTHORITY THERE) is like me telling someone else’s child they can go on a camping trip for the summer. I have no authority to do it—and just by me SAYING it, doesnt make it happen. Shame on my “cognitive dissonance”. LOL
Larry,
“I was talking about YOU ALL displaying the childish sarcasm, you MORON!!”
Are you trying to hurt my feelings?
That’s your predicament, Larry. You’re surrounded by morons and idiots. They just aren’t capable of appreciating your genius.
The LP is the Libertarian Party, genius.
Long-Playing vinyl records aren’t encountered so often, anymore.
Nal: “If Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment as a method to try and keep the South from seceding, then that’s spun as Lincoln “loved slavery.”
How can you possibly show MORE love for slavery than wanting it embedded into the Constitution FOREVER, without the possibility of it being REVERSED?
And tell me Nal, how does supporting Corwin KEEP THE SOUTH FROM SECEDING??? SEVEN STATES had ALREADY seceded before Lincoln gave his inaugural address!!!!!
Larry is a good example of the cognitive dissonance associated with supporting the Confederacy. His “solution” is Lincoln hatred. If Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment as a method to try and keep the South from seceding, then that’s spun as Lincoln “loved slavery.” If the Emancipation Proclamation doesn’t apply to the North, it’s not because “By 1840, virtually all blacks in the North were free,” it’s because Lincoln “loved slavery.” If Lincoln actively supported and signed the 13th Amendment, it’s because Lincoln “loved slavery.”