[tq4F7YKs]

YOU introduced a Ron Paul Manifesto in its entirety...I responded with a blanket appraisal of Ron Paul - which includes issues that he would rather overlook.

I introduced a quote whose attribution can be found six lines down in the center of the page. (It was by Ben Franklin if you didn't make it that far).

YOU introduced the phrase "Lincoln and his bloody war," and in that context, the issue of slavery becomes a strawman. How convenient. YOU introduced slavery as a dismissal of the Founding Fathers -- Franklin I presume -- before I ever brought up Lincoln.

YOU introduced a supporting work that I consider flawed, and responded in kind. I introduced a source for the posted excerpt from the foreword by Walter Williams that encapsulates the Lincoln opposition sentiment. You've failed to raise any doubts regarding Lincoln's authoritarianism.

Any opportunity to introduce a plug for Ron Paul - sounds like an agenda to me. I quoted Ben Franklin and I quoted Walter Williams quoting John C. Calhoun. YOU are the one with the apparent agenda attempting to discredit the Founding Fathers, Ron Paul and Thomas DiLorenzo rather than entertain my claim that Lincoln was an authoritarian and as a consequence made the United States more so.

NOW you can get back to the topic at hand. Our so-called free country has a grotesque authoritarian past. Caught in a fit of manifest destiny nationalism, an unscrupulous authoritarian murderously imposed his will upon a peaceful secessionist group irrevocably undermining and destroying the founding principles and willfully defying our founding documents. This act was so successful in concentrating state power that Hitler saw it as a model for his own authoritative power centralization aspirations.

In a grand geopolitical faustian bargain, the federal political apparatus has ensured its own relevance and power by relying on both real and imagined authoritarian boogymen abroad to justify its insatiable appetite for expanding authority and control. The New Age of Authoritarianism is shaping up to be a boon for domestic power hungry statists, their privileged corporate financiers, and their war loving military industry.

As an aid from Wikipedia:

Theodore M. Vestal of Oklahoma State University has written that authoritarianism is characterized by:

"Highly concentrated and centralized power structures," in which political power is generated and maintained by a "repressive system that excludes potential challengers" and uses political parties and mass organizations to "mobilize people around the goals of the government";

• The following principles:
  1. rule of men, not rule of law;
  2. rigged elections;
  3. all important political decisions made by unelected officials behind closed doors;
  4. a bureaucracy operated quite independently of rules, the supervision of elected officials, or concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve;
  5. the informal and unregulated exercise of political power";
• Leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors";
• No guarantee of civil liberties or tolerance for meaningful opposition;
• Weakening of civil society: "No freedom to create a broad range of groups, organizations, and political parties to compete for power or question the decisions of rulers," with instead an "attempt to impose controls on virtually all elements of society";
• Political stability maintained by:
  1. control over and support of the military to provide security to the system and control of society;
  2. a pervasive bureaucracy staffed by the regime;
  3. control of internal opposition and dissent;
  4. creation of allegiance through various means of socialization."

[ONLINEPHARMACYCHEAPILLS]

My dismissal was of Ron Paul, and his tunnel-vision view of the early republic. That the republic was flawed was not a dismissal of the Founding Fathers, but an acknowledgment that they were human.

But never mind.

It's typical for a libertarian like Paul to refuse to live in the real world, but yearn for a fantasy land, where we all behave like good little libertarians.

He (or you) can choose to manipulate an era of the most wartime of wartime presidents (yes, the real world has wars), and attempt to show that the authoritarian Lincoln engineered "his bloody war" to dismantle the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Funny. I always thought that this was the central theme of the founding of the republic:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. ..."

Wherever we are today, we're closer to that then we were in 1860.

Libertarians don't seem to be able to stomach that.

[Rqqneujr]

Sorry, I just couldn't let this roll-your-eyes moment slip by:

Our so-called free country has a grotesque authoritarian past. Caught in a fit of manifest destiny nationalism, an unscrupulous authoritarian murderously imposed his will upon a peaceful secessionist group...

[ATTILAGLIC]

Well, those secessionists were pretty gentlemanly, so long as their property worked hard and didn't get too uppity.

[Hammaduersnes]

I should rent Gone With The Wind.

[diemeareendup]

And no drumming allowed!

[Frierlovene]

Fiddle-dee-dee.

[Diortarkivoff]

I think something is wrong with my eyes.

Every time I read one of Jason's posts, all thw words start gettnig all lean-ey and move around.

I don't know, maybe it's just me.




Seriously, Jason, you never really listen to me anyway, but you seem to like to disagree. (No I don't!). Some of your points seem to be valid enough, but you also seem to push them right off the deep end.

Since when is majority rule wrong when it is a bigger majority overriding a smaller majority? The south was not split on Slavery, there were other issues. But THEIR majority wanted things different than the full majority of the US.

Well, their voting majority.

So, it is legal and in the spirit of the nation for a majority of people to allow something like Slavery, but not when a majority disagrees with a minority on the same issue? If the south secceeded Slavery would be OK?

And we are also supposed to believe that an agricultural society like our own would be able to "solve" our problems in the same way that England solved their Slavery issue? Buy them out?

Sounds good as a talking point on a talk show, but it has no real weight behind it. It is just whipping up a controversial issue on a popular figure in order to rattle the cages of the people he is talking with.

I kind of like Ron, but I still think he is a kook on some issues.

[TOOGUEITEME]

It's all fine and dandy to quote the Declaration -- just don't forget the part that actually applies to the case at hand.

Given the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions with Jefferson's description of the Constitution as a "compact":
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

(yes, the real world has wars)

And real world wars are about money and power, and are enabled by taxation and debt.

[emexiagog]

Again, it is all right for a smaller majority to impose its will on a smaller minority, but when it goes from a bigger majority to a smaller one, it is no longer OK.


Sure.

[joanasevilyboaz]

Are you implying I'm defending slavery?

[GrottereewNus]

Nope.

Never did. I didn't even bring up Hitler or WWII either!!!

All I was saying was that your bent seems to make the constitution look like an anarchistic proclamation. I doubt that is what was in mind when it was written.

It was intended to help with the governance of the people with a buffered democracy that would allow the people a voice in the decision making, a contrary system to what they had endured with England, but not a spur of the moment majority mob rule.

OTOH, saying that the majority never has the right to say what is done makes for a very difficult system of governing. If the majority saw what the south was doing as wrong, slavery being only one of the issues, then why should they be prohibited from acting against it? Should they have just let them do whatever they wanted even if that did not benefit the nation as a whole?

Slavery is just the easiest and clearest example. That is why it was used so often and remembered so long. I am not bringing it up as a foil to which any denial of my points attach's you to approval of it. But Slavery is not Legalized MJ. One is a human rights issue, the other is a federal authoritarian dictate over the individual states in the name of "national importance".



Back to my point though. Pointing to absolutes here will never work to come to an agreement. Pointing out that the "people" have a right to get rid of the "government" if they feel it is doing them "harm" doesn't quite fit with the Civil War. The North was not demanding complete subjugation and the south was proclaiming its own jurisdictional independence.

Whatever though. I do not see you or Zip agreeing on this. I will let you get back to your banter...

[drgshmcm]

Again, it is all right for a smaller majority to impose its will on a smaller minority, but when it goes from a bigger majority to a smaller one, it is no longer OK.


Sure.

I'm still confused with the context of your original remark.

Were you -- in relation to the Declaration -- equating the hypocrisy of the Founders' slave-owning with Lincoln's violent revanchist nationalism?

Is this just another instance of Tu Quoque being bandied about?

Pointing out that the "people" have a right to get rid of the "government" if they feel it is doing them "harm" doesn't quite fit with the Civil War.

Have you been following this thread at ALL?

Anyway...
Regarding the principle of nullification, Personal Liberty Laws were adopted by northern abolitionist states to foil federal fugitive slave laws. If it's OK for slaves to run away to be free of ownership and oppression, why is secession such an evil? Lysander Spooner wondered the same thing.


Btw Ninj, I'm sure Zippy appreciates your diplomatic peacemaking here.

[STYWOMBORGOSY]

Any attempt to label the Civil War as Lincoln's war of authoritarian aggression must ignore slavery, the all consuming political and economic issue in the antebellum years.

Slavery in the territories

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

The Three Fifths Compromise: By counting slaves as 3/5, instead of just counting free citizens, southern states were guaranteed control of all three branches of the government. At the time of the Civil War 1% of the northern population was black, while in the south 35% of the population were slaves. In the 1830s, southern states had 98 representatives, instead of 73. Of the 31 Supreme Court justices appointed up to 1850, 18 were from the south, despite the north having twice the voting population. This directly led to the Dred Scott decision.

Ostend Manifesto (1854): An attempt to annex Cuba into the Union as a slave state.

South Carolina seceded from the Union on Dec 24, 1860, before Lincoln was inaugerated. Its Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union argued states' rights, but also hypocritically argued against states' rights, noting that the federal government did not force the northern states to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 - i.e. overriding states' rights in the northern states.

The Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, made it clear in his Cornerstone Speech on March 21, 1861. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted...


(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. The issue of slavery gave the Civil War its moral focus. Remove it, and what you have is economic and political power by both the north and the south.

If Lincoln's administration was authoritative, one must wonder what sort of government the Confederacy would have been. Maybe we only need to look at various postbellum southern states. How would we describe the state government of Mississippi?

[abishiots]

I don't understand why the Confederate flag wasn't banned after the 'war of Northern aggression'.

[Narkeere]

The familiar "Confederate Flag" was never an official flag of the Confederate States of America.

Scroll down to The Confederate Flag.

[Mangoman]

I'm still confused with the context of your original remark.

Were you -- in relation to the Declaration -- equating the hypocrisy of the Founders' slave-owning with Lincoln's violent revanchist nationalism?

Is this just another instance of Tu Quoque being bandied about?

Not really. Just that we are applying too much to the original words here. The whole thing was a general practice of governance that was being proclaimed as a compromise to several revisionist proposals.

They all had slaves. Slaves did not vote, neither did women. But the "people" were supposed to be represented by several layers of filtering. First of all, the head of the household (the Fathers, predominantly). Then the elected reps, who were buffered by the electoral college.

It really was not as "free" as we thought it was.

So, quite honestly, the whole thing can be argued around in circles until we are blue in the face, it still does not paint Lincoln as an authoritarian despot.


Have you been following this thread at ALL?

Anyway...
Regarding the principle of nullification, Personal Liberty Laws were adopted by northern abolitionist states to foil federal fugitive slave laws. If it's OK for slaves to run away to be free of ownership and oppression, why is secession such an evil? Lysander Spooner wondered the same thing. Because you are now saying that the southern states are slaves. Apples and Elephants.

Btw Ninj, I'm sure Zippy appreciates your diplomatic peacemaking here. Just trying to buffer a bit. You both have very strong positions and opinions. You are both well informed. I just do not like it when it starts to degrade into borderline accusations of the others merit!


Keep it nice boys!

[ReggieRed]

Zippy, all excellent points.

Had "Old Rough and Ready" survived his term and shown up with gunboats off the coast of Maine to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 -- and the north decided to secede -- would you have a different view of secession? Would this have been the president behaving in an authoritarian mode and undermining Jefferson's founding principles?

Lincoln states explicitly in his first inaugural address that he will use force to collect taxes and property. Recall that Fort Sumpter at the time was a federal construction project which began following the War of 1812.

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

The abolition of slavery as a desirable outcome from the Civil War is no excuse.

"non facias malum ut inde fiat bonum"

Could the south have been allowed to "buy their freedom" from the "master" federal government rather than be tended and held together forcibly like some national plantation? I will admit, this tainted attitude of master government appears to have been original to the Founding Fathers (ruling class) deriving directly from the immorality of slavery.


I guess that in an age of creeping authoritarianism, peaceable secession as a foundational Right provides a general incentive from coercive toward noncoercive government. Bad for the present conception of government -- good for The People.

Thought of another way, if The People form by consent a government -- and that government is legitimate only for this very reason -- this democratic ideal is still upheld by withdrawing consent and forming a new government by consent.

"abusus non tollit usum"

*****

stache, isn't banning a flag like banning free speech? I'm sure when the British cut down the Liberty Tree they essentially made The Loyal Nine illegal.

[UpperMan]

Of course, you could read Marx and conclude that the Civil War was a schism encouraged by the British to enable them to profit from the exploitation of a low tariff slave holding Confederacy.

The weak side of a republican government is the danger of foreign influence.

But Hamilton also called for a "monarch for life." His reasoning:
It is admitted that you cannot have a good Executive upon a democratic plan. See the excellency of the British Executive. He is placed above temptation. He can have no distinct interests from the public welfare. Nothing short of such an executive can be efficient.

[gSjQEEmq]

I suppose you have issues with the EU banning the swastika.