Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Lincoln was a tyrant
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Lincoln was a tyrant (Read 2398 times)
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7988
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Lincoln was a tyrant
Jan 6th, 2019 at 12:09pm
Print Post  
Obviously when the Federal government has to use force to compel States to stay in the Union, that means they do not have the consent of the governed.  And obviously a government without consent of the people it governs is tyrannical and the leader of that government a tyrant.

That cannot be logically refuted.

And don't go to the slaves.

1) The Civil War wasn't fought over slavery and Lincoln offered the South enshrined slavery in the Constitution to avoid the war

2) If the Union only wanted to end slavery, they could have told the South the deal to leave is to give the Union the slaves.  Saying the Union said you have slaves so you have to stay in the Union is a stupid argument
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11282
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #1 - Jan 6th, 2019 at 1:31pm
Print Post  

"But the Union, in any event, won't be dissolved. We don't want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it, we won't let you. With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury in our hands and at our command, you couldn't do it."  -  Abe Lincoln

Abe rationalized that military might and income tax funding could be used against the free states to thwart any succession.

It was a costly lesson.   620,000 battlefield deaths.   an estimated 50,000 civilian deaths resulting from fires, shelling, disease, and displacement.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10811
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #2 - Jan 6th, 2019 at 6:02pm
Print Post  
Kinda ironic that the North pulled off its morally superior bullshit with the anti-slavery stance, but the Southern states produced all the goods and all the North produced was politics.

As I've said before, the secession issue is actually completely separate from the slavery issue.

If the North (which became America of today) was really so keen on no one having any slaves, they could have invaded the South, freed the slaves, and then still let the secession happen.

But they were not keen on no one having any slaves. Slavery was a convenient justification. Other countries have slavery today and because there's no profit in stopping it, and it can't be used as a convenient moral justification for immoral actions (like preventing secession) no one does anything about it.

The North would have starved without the South.

That was the long and short of it.

It is a matter of simple, logically unavoidable fact that the victors write the history. It is a matter of great tragedy that anyone believes it.
- Me
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5808
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #3 - Jan 6th, 2019 at 6:54pm
Print Post  
Thanks for posting that, Kaz.

I posted this in another thread, but it's more appropriate for this one:


Jeff wrote Today at 9:30am:
Quote:
Lincoln put down a rebellion as Congress instructed him to do. Consent of those involved in rebelling against the government was not necessary.



Kaz is right, Jeff.

No where in any document signed by representatives of any state does it say that states cannot voluntarily leave the union having voluntarily joined it.

In fact the states are very specifically granted that power in the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Your take on history is that the founders first "had to" protect slavery in the constitution in order to have a constitution with limited federal government.  Then the federal government "had to" ignore the constitution and continue to protect the "rights" of slavers in order to save the union from becoming smaller.

Quote:
Quote:
What do you think about the basis of the government of the CSA? Will you claim it was better than the U.S. Constitution in that it governed with the consent of the governed?



I know that question is for Kaz, but I'll answer it:

The C.S. Constitution was a vile document in that it protected slavery.  But it did not protect slavery nearly as strongly as the U.S. Constitution did.  The U.S. Constitution forbade Congress from banning the importation of slaves.  The C.S. Constitution banned the importation of slaves from any foreign country other than the U.S. and required (the Confederate) congress to pass laws to that effect.  It also specifically gave the Confederate congress the power to ban all importation of slaves.  Again, the U.S. constitution specifically said that the U.S. congress could not ban the importation of slaves.

I wish Texas would have turned out better and never joined the union at all.  Our first president, Sam Houston, was married to a Native American woman.  He and his first vice president, Lorenzo de Zavala, were working to bring about a multi-racial, freedom loving small government republic.  I'm sure they would have ended slavery and not with a bloody war required.

Unfortunately the next president was that bastard, Mirabeau Lamar, one of the most vile racists in history.  No wonder his followers thought joining a racist organization like the U.S.A was a good idea.  A prominent public high in Houston, Lamar High School, still honors his memory. 

Real good, Jeff.
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7988
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #4 - Jan 6th, 2019 at 7:44pm
Print Post  
Jeff doesn't remember what he posted five minutes ago much less what questions he asked or who he asked.  So feel free to address his questions to me.  You don't even need to say you're doing that.  He won't remember
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5808
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #5 - Jan 6th, 2019 at 8:50pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 6th, 2019 at 7:44pm:
Jeff doesn't remember what he posted five minutes ago much less what questions he asked or who he asked.  So feel free to address his questions to me.  You don't even need to say you're doing that.  He won't remember


I'm sure you're right.

I think we pretty much agree on the vileness of Lincoln.

What about taxes?  Theft, morally justified theft, or not theft at all?

  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Josh
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Stop looking at me like
that, you pervert.

Posts: 4274
Location: Inside your girlfriend
Joined: Aug 8th, 2010
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #6 - Jan 6th, 2019 at 9:46pm
Print Post  
Lincoln was one of the worst US presidents, if not the worst (FDR gives him a run for his money).
  

I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 11282
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #7 - Jan 6th, 2019 at 10:39pm
Print Post  
Josh wrote on Jan 6th, 2019 at 9:46pm:
Lincoln was one of the worst US presidents, if not the worst (FDR gives him a run for his money).

How about an honorable mention for Wilson?  He sure made a mess of things.   Wink
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 10811
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #8 - Jan 6th, 2019 at 11:28pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Jan 6th, 2019 at 10:39pm:
How about an honorable mention for Wilson?  He sure made a mess of things.   Wink


Johnson and Carter make my top 5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift

Carter did that.

Rottenveldt is definitely #1 worst for me.

Ran on promise of keeping the US out of war.

Got an extra term because he put the US into war.

And we only got rid of him because he died.

Top 5 Worst:
Rottenveldt
Wilson
Lincoln
Johnson
Carter
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 46200
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Lincoln was a tyrant
Reply #9 - Jan 7th, 2019 at 8:25am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 6th, 2019 at 6:54pm:
Thanks for posting that, Kaz.

I posted this in another thread, but it's more appropriate for this one:


Jeff wrote Today at 9:30am:


Kaz is right, Jeff.

No where in any document signed by representatives of any state does it say that states cannot voluntarily leave the union having voluntarily joined it.

In fact the states are very specifically granted that power in the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Your take on history is that the founders first "had to" protect slavery in the constitution in order to have a constitution with limited federal government.  Then the federal government "had to" ignore the constitution and continue to protect the "rights" of slavers in order to save the union from becoming smaller.

Quote:


I know that question is for Kaz, but I'll answer it:

The C.S. Constitution was a vile document in that it protected slavery.  But it did not protect slavery nearly as strongly as the U.S. Constitution did.  The U.S. Constitution forbade Congress from banning the importation of slaves.  The C.S. Constitution banned the importation of slaves from any foreign country other than the U.S. and required (the Confederate) congress to pass laws to that effect.  It also specifically gave the Confederate congress the power to ban all importation of slaves.  Again, the U.S. constitution specifically said that the U.S. congress could not ban the importation of slaves.



You're only fair at constructing revisionist history.

Congress was banned from outlawing the importation of slaves only for 20 years, not forever. It was another evil compromise with the slavers, but you should at least get your facts straight.

The CSA, by the time it was created, no longer needed to import slaves, they had their breeding programs working very well, and it was much easier to raise a child into slavery than to import and tame and train a wild African.

The Confederate Constitution specifically recognized the right to own slaves as property. States that remained in the Union could (and had) banned slavery by legislation, as Congress could have done for the entire nation, but in the new CSA, it would be unconstitutional for a state to ban slavery, and such a ban could only be accomplished by constitutional amendment.

What I've said, repeatedly, was that the founders did not believe that the new nation would survive without the assistance of all the 13 states, so they held their noses and compromised with the slave states in order to get them to join the union.

It was a rebellion. Lincoln was a politician. I don't fault him for thinking it was important to preserve the union even at the cost of continuing the Constitution's evil compromise on slavery, something he couldn't change without a constitutional amendment anyway. That the war to end slavery had good results in that the union was preserved and slavery was finally outlawed by the Constitution is something you prefer to ignore as you prefer to ignore that it was the stated intention of the CSA to spread slavery across North America and into Mexico where slavery was already illegal. The CSA was an evil expansionist nation that was ruled by elites in the fashion of a European empire. The world was well rid of them.




  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Lincoln was a tyrant
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy