-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.
Bron
“that part about the quantity of gold not being enough. All it means is that a smaller amount of gold can buy a pair of blue jeans or a house. So there is plenty of gold available for the purpose.”
It doesn’t really work that way. What happens when you revert to anything resembling a “Gold Stantdard” is reduced liquidity, a smaller money supply, more unemployment, etc. The end result would be that while the cost of a pair of pants would not change, almost no one would be able to afford them.
pbh
OS: “What do you hope to accomplish? I have asked that several times, and you have not explained what your goal is in putting so much effort into this.”
I answered THIS QUESTION TOO!!! You CONTINUE to ask questions OVER and OVER that are already answered!
My answer??:
“So, what did I prove OS? It’s not an issue of wanting everyone to say “Larry’s right”. Not at all. Pride makes humans unable to do that. I have proven a much deeper human condition: That when people are wrong and in panic mode, they will say ANY ridiculous comment to avoid just admitting they’re wrong.”
OS, Im assuming since you cannot find any proof the Civil War was authorized by Congress, you must now ADMIT that everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional??? Please explain for everyone here how a President can do things considered to be legal and constitutional, when he did NOT get Congress’ approval. This will be ignored.
pbh51 is ignoring me now—-I guess that proof I asked him for that the Civil War was approved by Congress couldnt be found. Im also assuming he cant find any of the Madison quotes I asked him for as well, that proves he was against decentralization.
Ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore, ignore. LOL
“What is it about “United” that you don’t understand?”
What is it about “Confederation” you dont understand?? Do you know what “confederation” means???
UNITED!!!
pbh:
that part about the quantity of gold not being enough. All it means is that a smaller amount of gold can buy a pair of blue jeans or a house. So there is plenty of gold available for the purpose.
Instead of an ounce of gold being necessary to buy a really nice HD TV, you may only need 1/10th of an ounce.
Inflation is used by central governments to cheapen the currency. That is why central planners dont like gold.
Of course this assumes that gold would be like any other commodity and have a fluctuating value.
But as you will probably point out, that does present some problems.
Oky1
“I was just pointing out the opinions of an actually [sic] leader, Jackson, of where this nation had come from. it’s foundation, it’s problems of his era, the serious evils of a centralized banking system, where he thought things where headed, the temptation of the day for the US Civil War, & his opinions on how we should proceed to a peaceful remedy.”
And, as a direct result of Jackson’s fiscal policies, the Nation arrived at a financial panic less than two months after he left office, still blaming the banks that he had already shut down. The panic wiped out billions in equity and plunged the nation into the worst depression in its fifty year history. The depression lasted over seven years.
Based on the results, do you think his policies were sound? Or do results not matter in your ideology?
pbh
Larry,
You have demonstrated some of the most amazing feats of logical acrobatics I have ever seen. Who cares what the King of England thought he was signing. I doubt anyone knows for sure, and all the parties to that have been dead for a couple of centuries. This was a union once the Articles of Confederation were repealed. The United States of America became a union and not a confederation once the Constitution of the United States was adopted. What is it about “United” that you don’t understand? Your attempts to revise history would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. Your behavior here has been rude, crude, and completely uncivil. What do you hope to accomplish? I have asked that several times, and you have not explained what your goal is in putting so much effort into this. You have not won any friends, and the only thing you have convinced people of is that you are boorish and ill informed.
I hope Turley is reading this. He might not like my style, but he has to agree with my facts. He should be embarrassed of all of you.
The founders did NOT create a NATION, they created a CONFEDERATION of STATES. When King George signed the peace treaty with our new country, he signed treaties with ALL THE INDIVIDUAL STATES—-not just ONE to the “United States” as a monolithic entity.
You my friend are VERY uneducated about BASIC things.
OS, why do you CONTINUE asking questions that I ALREADY answer???
Everyone here does it. But hardly anyone answers questions that I ask over and over.
“Larry, when do you plan to come to grips with the simple fact that Congress did not and would not have declared war? That would have been treating the rebel states as if they were a separate country, which they were not. It was an illegitimate rebellion, begun when local officials attacked and took over a major US military installation. The US government treated it as what it was, an internal rebellion. Same as if there is a riot in the street. The government does not, and should not, legitimize the rioters as if they had equal standing with the national government.”
ALREADY ANSWERED THIS YOU STUPID BLIND TWERP:
HERE WAS MY ANSWER:
“(OH god, I am so GLAD you said this because it proves all my points. IF Lincoln’s reasoning for attacking without the consent of Congress was because it was not a WAR [and even he admitted this because he called it a rebellion] then ALL of his acts were UNCONSTITUTIONAL because every atrocity Lincoln committed would have been LEGAL ONLY if Congress authorized Lincoln’s invasion. If Lincoln did not consider the Confederacy legitimate, that means he still considered them UNION STATES, and since that’s the case, he was committing TREASON according to Art. 3, Sec 3 of the Constitution, that states:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Did ya notice the word “ONLY” in there?)
(So Lincoln is SCREWED either way. On one hand, if he calls it a “rebellion” and not a “war” [which he did], according to you he doesn’t have to consult Congress [which I would LOVE to see your proof that Lincoln does not have to consult Congress unless the enemy is FOREIGN], but since it’s not a “war” everything he does is unconstitutional [because it’s not a war]. And since it is a “rebellion”, then they are still UNION states, therefore he is committing treason by levying war against them.
On the other hand, if he calls it war, he is giving legitimacy to secession [and since that’s the case, that would mean secession is constitutional, therefore he CANT attack] he has to consult Congress and get their approval, and even then he is STILL committing treason because even a SECEDED state is still a state. THIS is the VERY reason he did NOT get Congress’ approval. Lincoln KNEW it was unconstitutional and treason to invade states. He simply didn’t care)
“As I pointed out before, what do you think would happen if you got together with a few thousand of your neo-confederate buddies and mounted an attack on Fort Knox? Think Congress would declare war on you before calling out the M1A1 tanks and Apache helicopters?”
ALREADY ANSWERED THIS TOO MORON. CAN YOU READ???
HERE WAS MY ANSWER:
“(If we just attacked it out of the blue for NO reason, they would have every right to do what is LEGALLY necessary to punish us. But this is not what happened at Fort Sumter. I’ve only explained this a million times. South Carolina SECEDED from the Union and they formed the CONFEDERACY on February 8, 1861. They would NOT leave a SECEDED state—they PROVOKED the south and were the aggressors. That’s a MUCH different scenario than me and a bunch of guys just attacking something for no reason—douchebag)”
Dont ask those questions again.
OS: “The Constitution made this country a union; not a confederation of Balkanized states.”
WRONG. The states came FIRST, then the Constitution. Who do you think RATIFIED the Constitution? A bunch of beavers?? The STATES did. You can’t even get BASIC facts right!! I never said our Union was NOT a Union….I said it’s not a PERPETUAL one (meaning, PERMANENT, bound by ANY cause). Find me ONE statement in our founding documents that state our Union is perpetual and binding NO MATTER WHAT. Find ONE. JUST ONE.
“Just consider the notion that the South was somehow provoked into firing on its own fort. The number of double twisting back flips a person has to do to come to that assertion would be amazing even at the Olympic level.”
Yes, that was occupied by UNION troops!! You just ADMITTED it was South Carolina’s fort in that sentence!!
And you keep ignoring this pbh….
Show me PROOF that the civil war was AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS
Can’t find any proof, can you??? So, if it’s not authorized by Congress, it’s not a war, therefore everything Lincoln does is unconstitutional.
pbh51,
Feel free to have your opinions & I’ll keep mine.
I’m not here to fix you or anyone, I was just pointing out the opinions of an actually leader, Jackson, of where this nation had come from. it’s foundation, it’s problems of his era, the serious evils of a centralized banking system, where he thought things where headed, the temptation of the day for the US Civil War, & his opinions on how we should proceed to a peaceful remedy.
And as far as economics go, you’ve made yourself clear to me.
I understand, you another of those that believe if the US/world had more printer’s ink there’s not a problem in the world you couldn’t paper over.
Remember that line from the movie Patton in re: to Hitler, something… You paper hanging SOB.
I’ll you give one guess as to what the character Patton was referring to.
“LOL, give me ONE example of inflation being GOOD. Again, you will IGNORE this. Ha ha ha ha ha. That’s not what INFLATION is. That’s market value increasing! There could be a dozen reasons why market value makes a house increase in value—and NONE of them would be inflation.” — Larry
There is always, always correlations between inflation and limited supply goods. Let us suppose, for the sake of Larry’s intellectual abilities, that the economy has a money supply of $5.00 and 5 identical houses are the only goods within the economy. Each house is then worth $1.00. The Fed prints more money and increases the money supply to $10.00. Each house (in this simple exercise as the only goods) is now worth $2.00. Increasing the money supply causes inflation and house prices rise.
In all actuality $200,000 of 1994 dollars would be worth: $315,457.41 in 2013 but in large cities where land availability is often limited, you can see a more pronounced effect of inflation.
Thus answering Larry’s challenge to name one example of good inflation with increase in house value was correct.
Larry says, Larry 1, August 4, 2013 at 2:43 pm
pbh51 i also noticed you ignored this:
Show me PROOF that the civil war was AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS
even though I typed it like 6 times. No proof i assume???
**************************************
Larry, when do you plan to come to grips with the simple fact that Congress did not and would not have declared war? That would have been treating the rebel states as if they were a separate country, which they were not. It was an illegitimate rebellion, begun when local officials attacked and took over a major US military installation. The US government treated it as what it was, an internal rebellion. Same as if there is a riot in the street. The government does not, and should not, legitimize the rioters as if they had equal standing with the national government.
As I pointed out before, what do you think would happen if you got together with a few thousand of your neo-confederate buddies and mounted an attack on Fort Knox? Think Congress would declare war on you before calling out the M1A1 tanks and Apache helicopters?
Larry, the Articles of Confederation were repealed in 1789, replaced by the Constitution. Your literal-minded interpretation of the Constitution does not work, either legally or in practice. When the Articles of Confederation were repealed, the states agreed to come together as a union. The first sentence of the Preamble says it all:
Notice that word “Union” in there? The Constitution made this country a union; not a confederation of Balkanized states. The Constitution provided for a chief executive, which at Washington’s suggestion was to be called the President, not a monarch. It also provided for a judicial system of Courts with the SCOTUS as the final arbiter of legal issues. It also gave the new Federal government powers to tax and impose tariffs. Those laws and regulations applied to all the states, while allowing the states to make certain laws for themselves, as long as state laws did not conflict with the Constitution or Federal law. That is still the way it works to this day.
As for crimes that may have been committed by troops. In all the history of warfare, going back into the dim mists of ancient history, armies and soldiers have been committing crimes against civilians. During the Civil War that was true of both sides. It would not have made a hill of beans difference if Congress had approved or not approved quelling the rebellion. Human nature does not change because of a Congressional resolution. When there is armed conflict, atrocities are going to occur, no matter what happens at the top of the chain of command. During the American Revolution, there were also atrocities and pillaging. What happened in the secessionist states was nothing compared to what happened in Scotland following the Battle of Culloden Moor in 1746.
Otteray Scribe
“If you want to find out how that works”
You have attempted to do what I declined to do with very predictable results. The Hall of Mirrors that has installed itself here will continue to invert, ignore and invalidate every fact, form of logic or inevitable conclusion.
Just consider the notion that the South was somehow provoked into firing on its own fort. The number of double twisting back flips a person has to do to come to that assertion would be amazing even at the Olympic level.
pbh
pbh51 i also noticed you ignored this:
Show me PROOF that the civil war was AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS
even though I typed it like 6 times. No proof i assume???
“while I can accept that some Libertarians want to defend Southern motives for starting the rebellion and that they also have many other quaint notions, their overall lack of depth in the realm of economics is the most troubling.”
But you think inflation causes market value in houses to increase. lol
Oky1
“history books just can’t say Southerns started it. Banking/Insurance trash started the Civil War just as they had done before & continue doing so today, right here in the US & Europe.”
Here we go. Next up, the Elders of Zion.
“It’s been some time since I last read the farewell address of Pres. Andrew Jackson, the President that Killed the Banks!”
Jackson’s animosity toward central banks is well known. Also well known is the fact that his policies, more than British banks raising their interest rates, more than the sudden drop in cotton prices (due to over production), were the single greatest contributor to the Panic of 1837, his legacy, which followed his Farewell CYA by less than two months:
“In July 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed the bill to recharter the Second Bank of the United States (BUS), the nation’s central bank and fiscal agent. As the BUS wound up its operations in the next four years, state-chartered banks in the West and South relaxed their lending standards, maintaining unsafe reserve ratios.[2] Two domestic policies, in particular, exacerbated an already volatile situation. The Specie Circular of 1836 mandated that western lands could be purchased only with gold and silver coin. The circular was an executive order issued by Andrew Jackson, and favored by Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri and other hard-money advocates. The intent was to curb inflation, but the circular may have had negative consequences. Secondly, the Deposit and Distribution Act of 1836 placed federal revenues in various banks across the country. Many of these banks were located in western regions. The effect of these two policies was to transfer specie away from the nation’s main commercial centers on the East Coast. With lower monetary reserves in their vaults, major banks and financial institutions on the East Coast had to scale back their loans, which was a major cause of the panic.[8]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1837
In general, while I can accept that some Libertarians want to defend Southern motives for starting the rebellion and that they also have many other quaint notions, their overall lack of depth in the realm of economics is the most troubling. Surely it must be obvious that there isn’t enough gold in all the Earth to act as the medium of exchange for a global 19th century economy, to say nothing of the 21st.
pbh
OS, also when I said this “…because every atrocity Lincoln committed would have been LEGAL ONLY if Congress authorized Lincoln’s invasion.” That’s not fully true, because Lincoln still violated international laws of war by pillaging and plundering southern towns filled with civilians, raping and murdering them. So, even if his war was legit, he still wasn’t allowed to wage war on civilians. When I said every “atrocity”, I meant it was an atrocity because it wasn’t constitutional. If the war was approved by Congress, then most of his atrocities wouldn’t have been atrocities [like blocking southern ports].
OS, above when I said “…so they were considered FOREIGN ordered attacks in which the US were NOT considered the belligerents”…I meant to say “foreign PROVOKED attacks”…not “ordered”
In reality, the US actually did provoke the Japs into attacking Pearl Harbor, this is fact and not even considered a “theory” anymore. But that’s another argument for another time.