Posted on 03/06/2012 8:27:38 AM PST by donmeaker
There are, generally speaking, three types of libertarian perspectives on the Civil War. Many libertarians actually support the war, some condemn it without defending the Confederacy, and some are actually pro-Confederate.
I always did mow my own lawn, and often other peoples.
No, it wasn’t Abe that built the scaffold, it was that southerner Wilson who resegregated the federal govenment,, and the southern Democrats during the Roosevelt administration that voted for the various alphabet organizations.
The legal justification for the health care individual mandate is Korematsu vs. US, where a Japanese American was ordered to a concentration camp. We can hope that the current consideration of an individual mandate is an opportunity to overturn that bad decision.
The legal justification for the Interstate Commerce Clause giving federal government control of everything is Filburn vs. Wichard. Mr Filburn complied with the law passed by the southern Democrats to pump up wheat prices and didn’t sell more than the allotted amount. That wasn’t good enough for the southern Gentlemen who wanted white land owners to get paid for not hiring black sharecroppers.
So I guess you feel that way about Ayn Rand too?
ML/NJ
Fact:
Your chosen side only disliked slavery because of their deep seated hatred for any category other than "lily white.""
"in favor of our new territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home ... as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over." Lincoln
"are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white." Lincoln
“I plead the cause of free white men,” “I would preserve to white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and my own color can live without the disgrace which association with Negro slavery brings upon free labor.” David Wilmot of Pennsylvania
"See our present condition—the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another’s throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another. “Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated.” Abe Lincoln
Neo-yanks repent everybody’s sins except their own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK1EOle6OQw&feature=related
Besides, after a Union defeat or accession to Southern independence, the Confederacy would likely have rapidly demobilized, so there would not have been an Army of Northern Virginia, nor a Union Army of the Potomac, for that matter. The only Confederate state with Indian problems in the 1860s was Texas, and the Rangers would have taken over the whole responsibility for the frontier, a task they shared with the U.S. Army from 1845 until 1860. So for all practical purposes, the Confederate government would have been toothless.
Ditto for the Union if the British enticed the New England states and upstate New York into joining the Dominion of Canada in order to protect the St. Lawrence Valley and the eastern Great Lakes. The New England merchant and fishing fleets would gain the protection of the Royal Navy and access to British Empire markets. The Federal government would be similarly helpless, perhaps even more so, as their frontier responsibilities were far greater than those of the CSA.
For decades, Southern Democrats weren't so worried about big government so long as it let them have their way locally in racial matters. Who's to say the Confederacy would have been any different?
One big lesson in politics: people oppose a faraway government because it isn't "theirs." They see every act of the government as a usurpation. When people get a government that is "their own," they tolerate and even demand the same kinds of things they objected to before.
Of course the war was started by the southern hotheads to make the world save for slavery. Of course the war was won by the US to save the Union, and since slavery was a cause of disunion, then slavery had to go.
The tariff was low at the time the rebellion started. The tariff was raised only because of the rebellion.
Of course the jails are full of people who disagree that they should be coerced by the government.
Your false G-d lost.
I can tell you are so proud of the Union that Lincoln the Butcher left us, So proud. May he rot in hell.
—One big lesson in politics: people oppose a faraway government because it isn’t “theirs.” They see every act of the government as a usurpation. When people get a government that is “their own,” they tolerate and even demand the same kinds of things they objected to before.—
It is because they exercise more control over their local government. They are also more accountable.
“As Texas evolved from a cotton producing state to a cattle producing one, its interests would have diverged from the rest of the South. “
Texas leads the Nation in cotton production and only produces 30% of the nation’s cattle.
http://cotton.tamu.edu/cottoncountry.htm
I am so saddened by the war forced on the US by the slavers. May they rot in hell.
Your reference says Texas produces 25% of US cotton, and that can be compared to your claim of 30% of US cattle.
That would be enough for the interests of Texas to diverge from the other southern states, if the southern states continued to produce cotton.
Your sense of family values is lost.
I've never met any Conservative that proclaimed himself to be roman pagan. If worshiping broomsticks and cooking mouse tails in your cauldron isn't libtarded enough -- you other chosen hobby of marrying first cousins definitely takes the cake.
What do your children say about only having one set of Grandparents?
It was the cattle business that revolutionized the Texas economy in the late 1860s and 1870s, enabling the state to thrive even as Reconstruction crippled her sister Southern states. If the North had been defeated militarily or acceded to Southern independence, it is likely the cattle trade would have continued. With an early end to the war, the transcontinental railroad would have been likely been completed sooner than 1867. There is no reason to believe the North would not have continued attracting millions of European immigrants to the expanding factories and mines and the farmlands of the Great Plains. Therefore, Texas cattlemen would still have driven herds of cattle to Kansas railheads in Abilene and Dodge City.
What effect that would have had on Texas remaining in the Confederacy is speculative. Had George McClellan been elected President in 1864, Federal policy would have been cooperative and conciliatory towards the Confederacy. Had someone like Edwin Stanton succeeded Lincoln, there would have been a sort of cold war. In that case, Texas might have worked out separate trade deals with the North. Additionally, Texas may have negotiated treaties with France (which controlled Mexico) to the benefit of trade and commerce.
It was the cattle business that revolutionized the Texas economy in the late 1860s and 1870s, enabling the state to thrive even as Reconstruction crippled her sister Southern states. If the North had been defeated militarily or acceded to Southern independence, it is likely the cattle trade would have continued. With an early end to the war, the transcontinental railroad would have been likely been completed sooner than 1867. There is no reason to believe the North would not have continued attracting millions of European immigrants to the expanding factories and mines and the farmlands of the Great Plains. Therefore, Texas cattlemen would still have driven herds of cattle to Kansas railheads in Abilene and Dodge City.
What effect that would have had on Texas remaining in the Confederacy is speculative. Had George McClellan been elected President in 1864, Federal policy would have been cooperative and conciliatory towards the Confederacy. Had someone like Edwin Stanton succeeded Lincoln, there would have been a sort of cold war. In that case, Texas might have worked out separate trade deals with the North. Additionally, Texas may have negotiated treaties with France (which controlled Mexico) to the benefit of trade and commerce.
So people say.
But that goes against the libertarian argument that revolutions and secession movements are against intrusive government and dependence on politicians as such.
Rather, people just want to feel they have more control over government. When they get that they're not as opposed to taxes on "the rich," subsidies, welfarism, and bureaucratic regulation as their earlier rhetoric might have suggested.
After the Revolution we taxed ourselves more than the British tried to tax us. It would have been the same with an independent South.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.