Posted on 11/17/2002 2:15:27 PM PST by hscott
I can't disagree more with this. The restrictions on liberty at the time of the Civil War were temporary war measures, that ended with the close of hostilities. Violations of civil liberties were at least as severe in the rebel South as in the North. Mark Neely's book, "Southern Rights" documents these violations of individual liberty.
And while it's become common today for many to downplay the role of slavery in causing the war, a look at original documents will confirm the important role of slavery in triggering the conflict. Of course, at the outset of the war, unionists did not want to free the slaves, but rebels feared that Lincoln's election would ultimately mean the end of slavery and this sparked the rebellion.
What gets left out of contemporary defenses of the Confederacy was the great idealistic committment to union, to the flag and the constitution. Many will disagree today, but union meant something more than "economics and greed" to those who fought for it.
Such defenses of the Confederacy are based on today's South. People project back today's values, beliefs and orthodoxies on the Confederate leadership. What they ignore is that mentalities were very different in an age when slavery was legal, common and regarded as the basis of society. Southern elites gambled on secession and war to preserve their slave-based society and economy from what they regarded as Republican hostility.
To be sure, many or most Confederate soldiers did not believe that they were fighting first and foremost to preserve and defend slavery. Like all soldiers, they were fighting for home and family, for friends and native lands. But at a less personal and subjective level, it's clear that things would not have reached a war footing had slavery not embittered relations between sections of the country.
It's not clear that the Civil War greatly increased the powers of the federal government at the expense of the states or of individuals. That change happened in the 20th Century. The federal government wasn't much more powerful in 1880 than it was in 1840.
And the original meaning of the Constitution was in question from the beginning. Washington, Adams, Hamilton and others didn't share the radical Jeffersonian view of the Constitution. Nor did Marshall, the mature James Madison, Monroe or Jackson accept the Confederate interpretation of that document. Lincoln was far closer to the Washingtonian tradition than the Confederate rebels were.
With enough libertarian-supported inaction, we would have been faced with two very unappetizing choices: accede to the demands of a Soviet superstate that controlled Europe, Asia, and Africa, with the eventual destruction of the United States as a free and sovereign republic; or we would eventually reject the libertarian argument and become a full-fledged garrison state, with the eventual destruction of the United States as a free republic.
And? Why should America have "allies?"
Because when it's "The Rest of The World" vs. America, TROTW is going to win.
The US helped Soviet Expansion after WWII.
Furthermore, we helped them to continue. I remember vividly our exports of Wheat which helped to prop up the failing government way back in the 70's.
Oh, how about Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution?
And why don't you think we were initiating aggression agaisnt Japan?
Are you saying that if the local Piggly-Wiggly decides to not sell groceries to a robber, they are engaging in aggression against the robber?
Had we stayed completely out, the Soviets would have expanded without limit.
Furthermore, we helped them to continue. I remember vividly our exports of Wheat which helped to prop up the failing government way back in the 70's.
Waitaminute, I thought you said trade embargoes were acts of war against the embargoed country.
Yup. Blame the drugs, and not the parents that failed to act in the best interests of their child. And if someone who is not a parent of the child in question provides drugs to that child without the permission of the parents, and which results in harm to the child, then that third party is liable, if you ask me.
Some idiot old babyboomers (sorry for the triple redundancy) starve to death because they could never be bothered to save for old age.
So it's the government's job to protect idiot old babyboomers from themselves by pointing a gun at me in order to take some of my income so that the IOB's can have it?
Others lose their savings when they invest them all in Bill Clinton Enterprises.
So it's the government's job to protect unwary and unwise investors from themselves by pointing a gun at me in order to take some of my income so that the UI's can have it?
Forcing Americans to chose is an act of aggression on both the Americans and countries in question. You didn't answer the question.
This is often repeated but hardly verified.
Waitaminute, I thought you said trade embargoes were acts of war against the embargoed country.
They are. But it doesn't make alot of sense to involve yourself in military aggression against a nation on the premise you are attempting to topple its government and then also ship it grain due to the fact that the government in question can't feed its people.
Furthermore this wasn't trade it was "aid." A Gift paid for by the American taxpayer.
What part of that section says that the US government may prevent citizens from engaging in trade?
Are you saying that if the local Piggly-Wiggly decides to not sell groceries to a robber, they are engaging in aggression against the robber?
Are you saying that Piggly Wiggly is an arm of the federal government?
Sigh. Posted for your edification:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations
Demidog, you're a hoot. You act as if you're dumb as post, but you're a hoot.
That's nice. Let us know when you actually understand the thing, will ya?
The excerpt that you post does not give congress the authority to prevent Americans from trading with people of other nations.
Wrong-o.
Regulation is not banning.
Wrong. Regulation can include banning any and all trade with specific countries, or it can ban trade in specific goods and services.
Unless, of course, you're saying that Bernie Schwartz had an unlimited right to sell missile technology to the ChiComs, who now point those Loral-improved missiles at us.
Republicans haven't left Reagan either. Reagan's legacy as a great conservative Republican remains safe. Reagan is a conservative hero and not a libertarian hero. If libertarians want a hero they should look to that old fart Harry Browne or the looney, Ron Paul.
What if our security depends on abriging our liberties to some extent. Which side do you choose?
Without a doubt, I choose Liberty. Your point is well taken, but give me Liberty and I will make myself secure. Furthermore, the scenario that your question poses presents an unrealistically limited set of choices. In fact, there are many more ways that the government can assure our security.
In short, if a country gives aid or assistance to terrorists (i.e. Afghanistan and Iraq), we hold the leadership of that country responsible and take immediate and decisive military action in retaliation. If a country fails to act against its citizens who give aid or assistance to terrorists (i.e. Saudi Arabia), we hold the leadership of that country responsible and if after being warned, they still fail to take action to punish those people within a reasonable time frame, we take decisive military action in retaliation.
The answer is not to punish Americans, by restricting our rights. The answer is to go after the terrorists and any country that, either through overt action or through inaction, gives aid or assistance to terrorists. The leadership of those countries should be treated as terrorists themselves and we are perfectly within our rights to defend ourselves by attacking those who give any kind of sustenance to our avowed enemy.
So acts like the Patriot Act have to be justified on the grounds that it will really help security (I'm not sure it is justified).
You nailed the problem in that statement. In fact, having read the entire 367 pages of the USA Patriot Act, I can tell you that less than 10% of what is in that act, is in fact "justified" and might actually help prevent terrorism. Both parties used the wave of patriotism that followed the September 11 attacks and threw in their wish list of the things that they knew the voters would never support. As I pointed out earlier, 125 pages of that act had nothing to do with anything except the monitoring of US financial institutions and the flow of funds within the United States. There is no excuse for that, since we know that the terrorists do not use the US banking system to launder funds. We know that they use the Arabic banking system, that we have absolutely no control over. (See Defending the American Dream - Taxes, Tort and Terrorism, for more on this issue)
Would you rather be dead than even slightly unfree?
Actually, I would much rather that the terrorists and all of their supporters were dead and you and I were still free. You don't punish all women, by telling them to stay home, just because there are a few rapists on the loose. You aggressively go after the rapists and their accomplices. You don't punish all gunowners, by taking away their guns, just because there are some thieves on the loose who are using guns to rob convenience stores. You aggressively go after the thieves and their accomplices. And, you don't punish the American people, by taking away their rights, just because there are a few terrorists on the loose who might attack us. You aggressively go after the terrorists and their accomplices, even and especially when their accomplices are other nations.
When our government uses the threat of terrorism to strip us of our rights, they are playing right into the hands of the terrorists. In the name of fighting terrorism, Dubya and Congress have done far more damage to this country since September 11, 2001, than the terrorists could ever dream of doing in 100 years.
That's why I always vote for the man rather than for the party.
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.