Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 26 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Socially Responsible Capitalism. (Read 1196 times)
Thumper
Libertarians Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 109
Location: Midwest
Joined: Dec 4th, 2017
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #40 - Dec 6th, 2017 at 8:41am
Print Post  
By the time the civil war started the northern stats paid about 35% of federal revenue. And the southern states paid the rest.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23292
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #41 - Dec 6th, 2017 at 8:54am
Print Post  
Thumper wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 8:41am:
By the time the civil war started the northern stats paid about 35% of federal revenue. And the southern states paid the rest.
Yes, the tariff issue. It was not a life or death issue for "the North". The National government had Constitutional authority through powers of Congress to levy other types of taxes.
Certainly rich slave owners in the South hated the tariff, because they were basically third world countries that exported commodities and imported manufactured goods, mainly from Europe.

No one in the South who wasn't a rich slave owner was exporting lots of commodities and paying lots of tax on imported goods from Europe... But the big plantation owners were, and they also happened to be the people who controlled the State governments and sent Senators to Congress.

They wanted to preserve their "way of life" which was being rich cronies who controlled the governments of their states and had enough power in Congress to get the Fugitive Slave Act made the law of the U.S., so that their "property" would be returned to them when it escaped, and their slaves could keep producing commodities for them to sell, so they could keep buying luxuries from Europe.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1065
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #42 - Dec 6th, 2017 at 11:06am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 8:18am:
Lincoln's objective was to preserve the Union. In his mind, that's what was important and why Congress had declared war and he was trying to win it.

Abolitionists, who were a powerful enough voice to influence most state governments in Free states, wanted to end slavery in America. They most certainly wanted to stop slavery from spreading into the territories, which is why they were moving to Kansas and Missouri and fighting the pro-slavery people there- before the civil war.

Slave states had been threatening to secede for years, over the issue of admitting more slave states to the Union.

When Lincoln was elected with enough of a majority in Congress to prevent new slave states from being admitted to the Union, (i.e. give the Abolitionists what they wanted) several slave states did secede, and South Carolina attacked Fort Sumter.

As I said, a Constitutional amendment outlawing slavery in the U.S. would have had no effect in the CSA, and might have pushed some border states that had not seceded into leaving the Union.
So we only abolish slavery if there is absolutely no downside?  Exactly the thought of tobacco plantation owners in the Carolinas and cotton growers in the rest of the south.

I'm not claiming that the south did not secede over slavery.  That was an important reason and maybe the most important reason.  What I'm saying is that the north had no moral high ground because their aim was to preserve federal revenue, not to free any slaves.  Lincoln himself said it, I don't know why you can't acknowledge that.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5925
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #43 - Dec 6th, 2017 at 12:01pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 11:06am:
So we only abolish slavery if there is absolutely no downside?  Exactly the thought of tobacco plantation owners in the Carolinas and cotton growers in the rest of the south.

I'm not claiming that the south did not secede over slavery.  That was an important reason and maybe the most important reason.  What I'm saying is that the north had no moral high ground because their aim was to preserve federal revenue, not to free any slaves.  Lincoln himself said it, I don't know why you can't acknowledge that.



Let it go burnsred, the civil war to abolish slavery is over and your side lost. Babbling on about minor excuses is blowing your cover.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23292
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #44 - Dec 6th, 2017 at 3:34pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 11:06am:
So we only abolish slavery if there is absolutely no downside?  Exactly the thought of tobacco plantation owners in the Carolinas and cotton growers in the rest of the south.

I'm not claiming that the south did not secede over slavery.
No, you have it all boggled up. The slave owners were willing to fight to preserve their "right" to own people as property and treat them like livestock.

Right, you have been claiming that secession over slavery and the attack on Fort Sumter didn't lead to the war, that it was Congress declaration of war against the foreign nation that attacked Fort Sumter and Lincoln's prosecution of the war, as was his Constitutional duty, that caused the war. Poo.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5925
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #45 - Dec 6th, 2017 at 3:42pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 3:34pm:
No, you have it all boggled up. The slave owners were willing to fight to preserve their "right" to own people as property and treat them like livestock.

Right, you have been claiming that secession over slavery and the attack on Fort Sumter didn't lead to the war, that it was Congress declaration of war against the foreign nation that attacked Fort Sumter and Lincoln's prosecution of the war, as was his Constitutional duty, that caused the war. Poo.

Have you been manipulated into acting like a decent person for the sake of the new guy. Well, at least for as long as you can endure doing so?

I think I'm with the others in saying, we all hope so!

Or is it worth it to you to not hear anymore mention of your habits. I'm good to my word on that in case you were interested?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23292
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #46 - Dec 6th, 2017 at 4:12pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 3:42pm:
Or is it worth it to you to not hear anymore mention of your habits.
Piss off liar.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1065
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #47 - Dec 6th, 2017 at 4:26pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 3:34pm:
No, you have it all boggled up. The slave owners were willing to fight to preserve their "right" to own people as property and treat them like livestock.

Right, you have been claiming that secession over slavery and the attack on Fort Sumter didn't lead to the war, that it was Congress declaration of war against the foreign nation that attacked Fort Sumter and Lincoln's prosecution of the war, as was his Constitutional duty, that caused the war. Poo.
Secession does not automatically lead to war.  That was the choice of the United States, not their obligation.  There is absolutely no part of the constitution that forbids states from seceding and certainly no part that requires or even authorizes the president to invade those states if they do. 

You're the forum's resident constitutionalist and I mean that with no sarcasm.  You know it well.  Tell me if I missed the part that removes the right of states who entered the union voluntarily to exit  the union voluntarily. 

You are surely aware that the U.S. Congress never formerly declared war on the Confederacy or on "states in rebellion" or anyone else during that time?  They did put out an unofficial statement of the reasons for the invasion which - surprise - did NOT include ending slavery.

On this day in 1861, Congress enacted a resolution declaring that the Civil War was being fought to preserve the Union, not to abolish the South's "peculiar institution" of slavery. The resolution was named for Rep. John Crittenden of Kentucky (1786-1863) and Sen. Andrew Johnson of Tennessee (1808-1875), who became president upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865.

The resolution was aimed at keeping the pivotal states of Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland in the Union. As the war had begun a few months before, in April, Lincoln was worried that those three slave-holding states might join the Confederacy. (Delaware, the other slave state on the Union side, had so few slaves that its fealty was never in doubt.) Were Maryland to bolt, the nation's capital would be surrounded by Confederate territory. And since Lincoln was born in Kentucky, losing the state early could be viewed as a major political setback for the White House.

The resolution said the war was being fought not for "overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states," but to "defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union." The war, it further stated, would end when the seceding states returned to the Union.


So it was in part because Lincoln was born in Kentucky and would be "a major political setback" for him if Kentucky seceded that the slaves of that state could not be freed even in the Emancipation Proclamation?

I'd love your answer to this one:  Why did they not at least free the slaves of Delaware, those awesome dedicated abolitionists?  Too few to bother with?

Just one more point on the supposed fierce abolitionism of the north:  The north was happily accepting cotton, tobacco and taxes from the south knowing that it was grown using slave labor.  Why did they not simply free the southern states to form their own country as they desired so the northern states could abolish slavery and prove that a nation could prosper without it?  That would have been a much better way to improve the lives of the people of all four North American nations than that bloody war that killed more people than it freed. 

Or maybe statists of the time were asking, "If we don't get all those tax revenues from the south - Gee, how ya gonna pay for that?"
   
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 23292
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #48 - Dec 6th, 2017 at 4:35pm
Print Post  
burnsred wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 4:26pm:
Secession does not automatically lead to war. 
What almost always does lead to war is when one country attacks another country.

That's what happened.

The Confederate States of America decided to attack a U.S. military installation and did. The Congress of the Confederacy had already decided on war.

After the U.S. was attacked, the U.S. Congress declared war, and Lincoln did his duty to prosecute the war to a victory.

Had slave owners in America decided to follow the lead of the rest of the civilized world and free their slaves, there would have been no Civil War.

Instead of doing that, they formed a new nation, dedicated to the proposition of human slavery, and started a war with the U.S.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1065
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Reply #49 - Dec 6th, 2017 at 4:53pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Dec 6th, 2017 at 4:35pm:
What almost always does lead to war is when one country attacks another country.

That's what happened.

The Confederate States of America decided to attack a U.S. military installation and did. The Congress of the Confederacy had already decided on war.
I believe that the people in that U.S. military installation were asked several times to leave by the government of the nation it was located in.  You who have expressed indignation at the idea of trespassing should understand that.

Quote:
After the U.S. was attacked, the U.S. Congress declared war, and Lincoln did his duty to prosecute the war to a victory.
Actually, the congress never declared war on anyone during the Civil War.  With all the wars we've fought absent a formal declaration, that may seem a petty point.

Except to a self-proclaimed constitutionalist, of course.


Quote:
Had slave owners in America decided to follow the lead of the rest of the civilized world and free their slaves, there would have been no Civil War.

Instead of doing that, they formed a new nation, dedicated to the proposition of human slavery, and started a war with the U.S.
The slave owners of United States had not at that point joined the civilized world and freed their slaves.  The United States was highly dedicated to the proposition of human slavery and the "right" to own slaves was specifically protected in several clauses of the U.S. Constitution.  Another example of natural rights conflicting with constitutional rights.

I'd love your answer to this one:  Why did they not at least free the slaves of Delaware, those awesome dedicated abolitionists?  Too few to bother with?



  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 26
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Socially Responsible Capitalism.
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy