Ron Paul will have at least 9 deligates at the convention

[Amianthus]

It is right to teach that Lincoln saved the union and ended slavery because that is what happened in a nutshell.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I'm guessing a lot of people were asleep in history class when the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution was discussed.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Civil War was not fought expressly to end slavery, but that is what it did, nonetheless.
It was a very stupid move from any perspective, as the value of the slaves and their labor was far less than what the War cost in lives and money, all of which could have been used to develop the country for everyone, freed slaves included.

Brazil managed to end slavery with only an end to the monarchy.

[Stray Pooch]

No, Pooch, I'm not. The Civil War was not a program to end slavery. You can call it a program, but that would be you making semantic arguments, not me.

No, you are.  BT's point was that government was necessary.  He used the general expression that a "program" was in place to end slavery and you focused on it and changed the debate from the effacy of government to whether or not the war was a "program."  That's a semantical argument.  In fact, you certainly CAN call a war a program, since that term is generic.  But whether that term covers a war, a new cabinet department or an ongoing debate in congress or among the people for that matter, is a completely irrelevant point.  The point is that the end of slavery required a government - not the fine good will of the Southern white people.

Of course it wasn't the point. The point was that since there was this government "program" to end slavery someone opposing big government must oppose the ending of slavery. It was clever in a childish sort of way, but it's a bogus argument.

No that wasn't the point.  The point was that government was required to do the job and the question was rhetorical.  The argument is valid, and as for what behavioir constitutes childish, I'll vote for sarcasm over rhetoric any day.

Hey, Pooch, before you get on some angrily righteous rant about the need for government (oops, too late) I'd like to point out that I never said either that the government was not needed to or should not have abolished slavery.

Who said you did?

These conversations would be a lot easier if people like you and BT would stop assuming that I oppose any and all government, and any and all things done by government. I wouldn't have to be so sarcastic all the time, and you wouldn't have to spend the time typing out long pro-government rants.[/color]

These conversations would be easier if you would stop assuming that by making a general point about libertarianism I wasn't personally attacking you.  As to you "having to be sarcastic all the time" that's a personal choice.  It has nothing to do with me or BT.  And as to my long rants, well, that's MY choice.   I'd do that no matter what I thought you thought.

I'm pretty sure that by 1860 we had moved on from the Articles of Confederation. And by 1860, there were a few more states involved than had been represented at the signing of the Articles of Confederation. So I'd have to say your argument there doesn't hold up.

And you'd be wrong, for the reasons I have already pointed out in my post about common law.

Sigh. Hey, Mr. Obseravnt, no one argued that the government shouldn't protect the rights of the people. In point of fact, I have more than once in this forum argued that government should do exactly that.

My desire to point out the obvious wouldn't exist were it not for the general lack of understanding that libertarians have about the Constitution and the role of government.  Libertarians and liberals have the same basic problem but on different sides of the scale.  They both want to live in a dream world.  Liberals want to live in a dream world where government eliminates the need for moral behavior and libertarians want to llive in a dream world where moral behavior eliminates the need for government.  The government exists to fill in where moral behavior and personal responsibility fail, not to force the former or supplant the latter.

Uh, no, I don't. I don't at all. If I ridiculed anything it would be the notion that support for, say, the abolition of slavery means I should then also support and not criticize big government.

Then how do you explain this comment you made earlier in the thread?   "Yes, BT, We all need the kind, compassionate and leviathan government, who only ever looks out for the good of the citizens, to save us all from the wild, frightening and oh so dangerous world in which we live."  I'd characterize that (and I did) as ridiculing those who are rely on government to protect them from the big, bad, world.  I think that's a pretty reasonable paraphrase of your comment.  What would you call it?

I have some news for you, Mr. Righteously Indignant. I have made that argument here in this forum many times. And usually I get criticized for it. And now, here you are, lecturing me about it. If I were less patient, this is the point where I'd tell you to -- ---- --------. But I won't say that.

I know you have made that argument.  Again, I don't question your sincerity, I just think you fail to understand the full significance of the argument.   As to your patience level and your cryptic threat to tell me 2 blanks 4 blanks 8 blanks (hmmm, could that be a code?  Two letter word - GO?  8 letter word "YOURSELF"  - damn, too many four letter words out there for me to figure this one out.)  I know you are seldom the type to resort to gratuitous profanity but your patience does not seem to extend to the point of civil behavior.  Sarcasm and ridicule are bound to come up sometimes around here.  To some it is SOP.  But there are some posters on this forum - and you are at the top of my list - from whom I expect a higher standard of debate.  Damn right I'm being self-righteous, but I find it hypocritical to make that accusation given the implicitly self-righteous nature of your sarcastic style in this thread.

Let's just snip this right here, cutting out a lot of really boring if passionate arguments about how libertarians would allow chaos, abuse, racism, rights violations and probably satan himself to run rampant. First of all, not all libertarians are anarchists.

Not all Klansmen are racists.  Not all feminists are man-haters.  So who said they were?  I am not talking about the motives of libertarianism - I am talking about the results of the philosophy.

Second, there are lots of ideas within libertarianism about how to protect the rights of individuals, even in the absence of a government proper.

But those are ideas based on a flawed philosophy and - as in communism - they sound great in theory but fail to account for human nature.  I see very good arguments in libertarian principle, but I see them as flawed.

Third, even if I had the time to try to counter you point for point, I doubt seriously it would make one whit of difference. Talking about libertarianism is useless to people who righteously and indignantly shut their minds to it. Even if I could eloquently spell out all the different ideas various libertarian folks have for dealing with these issues, I would still end up being lectured to by the likes of you about how horrible libertarianism is for wanting to abolish government and supposedly leave every last human without any protection from or recourse against all the worst that could ever happen. So frankly, I don't think you are worth wasting the effort.

That's your choice.  I find the argument that you lack time to lack credibility, as there is no time constraint on this forum.  I find your complaint that I "righteously and indignantly shut my mind" to be specious.  I accuse you of exactly the same thing, and I reject the accusation against myself.  I have listened to - even flirted with - libertarian philosophy for years.  I have rejected it on merit, not on narrow-mindedness.  As it happens, the overwhelming majority of Americans have done so as well  - which is why Ron Paul really is insignificant.  I think libertarianism, like liberalism, has great ideas that bear adaptation and adoption by sensible thinkers.  But I think that, like liberalism, those ideals are deeply flawed.  Because I disagree with something you feel so strongly about you accuse me of shutting my mind.  I haven't shut anything, I've simply reached a conclusion. 

No, I ridicule it because it is a stupid question. I was not arguing against government or government actions to protect the rights of people. I was not arguing against the government action to end slavery. The question was intended as a "gotcha". It would be sort of (not exactly, but sort of) like you arguing against socialism and someone asking if you're against protecting workers from abusive employers.[/color]

I see that point, but it only supports what I said that prompted it.  It was NOT a stupid question, nor was it intended as a "gotcha."  It was a rhetorical question aimed at making a point about the importance of government.  I can see, from your counterargument above, why you responded as you did, but it again points out that you only ridiculed it because it goes against your concept of what the debate was. 

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

The only time I lose sleep over historical facts is when I am up debating them at night.

They do? Have you some examples? I'm fairly certain I never said such a thing.

I don't have a specific source, however I think if you listen to any libertarian thinker for very long you will hear something like it.  Neal Boortz explicitly states it several times a week.  Your comment I quoted about the "big, cruel government" is an implication of the same.  Again, if you want to argue semantics, maybe it hasn't been said exactly in that fashion.  "You're afraid of freedom" (a favorite Boortz-ism) isn't EXACTLY the same as "You're too cowardly to live without big government."  But that is Clintonian logic.  If you insist on a specific source, I'm far too lazy to look for one.  But that doesn't make the accusation any less accurate.  I'll make another unsupported statement.  Some liberals compare George W, Bush with Hitler.  I'm too lazy to google that one, either, but I stand by it.

One could, yes, but then I have not seen any libertarian make argument for wanting such a thing. Ever. I have, on the other, hand, seen libertarians denounce the abuses of power that come from the collaboration of corporations and government. I have also seen libertarians argue in favor of protecting the environment through strong protection of property rights. Of course, I have also seen libertarians argue against abuses of power by government, discriminatory laws and wholesale trampling of property rights and such. But I won't mention that because I would hate to see you going off on another "libertarians want chaos and anarchy" rant.

I find your pattern interesting.  You say something, then say you "won't say" that something in order to use as a launching point for an ad hominem attack.  You've done that several times.  Your debate style in this entire thread, after a point at least, has been to heap sarcasm, ridicule and deflection on the points made against you.  If you are that upset, why bother to waste the time (which you claim is scarce enough not to waste on substantive debate) answering posts with which you disagree at all? 

Gee, thanks. You're so (I'm being sarcastic again) fair.

Yes, I got the sarcasm part.  I have raised five teenagers.  Trust me NOBODY can out-sarcasm that record.  It was, however, not necessary since I am in fact being both fair and rational.  That acknowlegement (the one you quoted, I mean) was not gratuitous.  You  made an argument a few paragraphs ago that libertarians fought to save the environment by protecting property rights (as one example).  Not having a specific point to rebut, I would say generally that many libertarians might well fight to protect personal property rights in order to somehow help the planet (that's not intended sarcastically, I just don't have a specific instance to list as an example).  But the unintended results of SOME of those types of very sincere stands lead to the very kinds of abuses I cited earlier.  The reason I acknowledge, when I can, that I recognize the sincere good intentions of many who fight such battles is because I understand that sometimes a criticism of a particular philosophy can either be taken as a personal attack or a broadbrush of an entire group.  I try to short-circuit that by acknowledging it in advance, but as is evident from this thread, the effort is seldom successful. 

Not to mention that too much government empowers those who would use their economic power to do the same to simply use the government to accomplish it. Kelo vs. New London ring a bell?

Yes, and it's an excellent example of your point.  Incidentally, if you are looking for a good bank, try Branch Bank and Trust (BBT) if it is available in your area.  They have stated publicly that they will NOT lend money to those who obtain land through eminant domain.  I like to remind people about that everytime the subject comes up in the hope that any lost business they experience as a result of that stance is offset by people switching their accounts over to them.  We are in agreement on that particular issue, and frankly, I have a real tough time figuring how anyone wouldn't feel the same, except (if you'll pardon the rhetoric) greedy developers.

This notion you seem to have, Pooch, that libertarians want to see corporations free and unrestrained in any way to trample over people's rights is not even fit enough to be called excrement. You say you have no respect for libertarianism, but you seem not to know the first thing about it.

I know plenty about it.  I just happen to view it differently from your perspective.  I made the point that people are sincere in their motives (which you ridiculed) is for just that reason.  I do not believe that libertarians (or Libertarians, which are not the same thing) want all of the evils you just cited.  I also do not think that liberals want the evils that come about as a result of their programs.  I am only talking about the flaws in the respective philosophies - not the practitioners thereof.  You are accusing me of taking the same stance toward libertarians as some of the liberal posters on this forum do toward Bush.  (He is nothing but an evil, lying, Hitler clone who caused 9-11 and lied to get us into war.)  I don't do that.  I don't assume that flawed philosophies indicate flawed people or bad intentions.   I certainly have no desire or interest in insulting you, or libertarians in general.  An awful lot of highly intelligent people on this forum are, or profess to be, libertarian whether capital or lower-case "L."  But I will certainly state, and not back down, that libertarian philosophy is fatally flawed because it fails to truly understand the role of government and that the arguments I have seen specific libertarians make concerning the nature of our Constitution and the interpretation of that document have been flawed as well. 

I guess respecting something you only know from lies and distortions is difficult. But I'm sure you as a Mormon wouldn't know anything about that, now would you?

If all I know about libertarianism is lies and distortion then libertarians are lying to me.  I am not aware of (though I am sure they exist) books or web sites that claim to promote the "truth"  about libertarianism (as in "the TRUTH about Hillary Clinton") - and I wouldn't be interested in them anyway. (Pooch's Law of Inverse Verity:  Any book with "Truth" in the title probably has it nowhere else in the book.)  All I know about libertarians I have learned from libertarians themselves.  Your citation of my faith is not a low-blow, because it is a perfectly legitimate point, but it is not a valid comparison because the "lies and distortions" about my faith are not coming (at least for the most part) from members of my faith.  (It is true that some members are inadvertantly passing along their own misunderstandings, but that is true of any large organization.)  When I listen to Libertarian Neal Boortz (almost daily), or read what you or Victor or others post on this site, or listen to what a Libertarian candidate publicly states and base my opinion of libertarianism on those sources, I can hardly be accused of basing my opinion on "lies and distortion." 

I've about reached the limit of my patience on this. I could go on, and probably do some ranting myself, but that would serve no purpose.

If this, sir, is your idea of patience, I would not like to see you when you lack it.

[Stray Pooch]

I'm guessing a lot of people were asleep in history class when the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution was discussed.

Like the Emancipation Proclamation, the C-J Resolution was a political document with a political agenda behind it.  If one wishes to be very precise in a very narrow argument, one could argue that the civil war was "technically" fought only to restore the union, as C-J states, or one could even argue (as I have heard) that the Fort Sumter issue "started" the war (either because the US failed to git off CSA land or because the CSA attacked a US fort).  But such arguments are beyond the mark.  Slavery was the issue that lead to the crisis in the first place.  All other arguments are rationalizations.

That slavery was the cause of this war is clear from the language which the South used to justify its secession.  As an example. look at this excerpt from the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.    This is the equivalent of the Declaration of Independence of the USA.  It declares the secession and states the reasons.  Resistance to Fugitive Slave laws, tolerance of Abolitionist Societies and attempts like the Missouri Compromise to limit the growth of slavery (along with the election of Lincoln, objectional specifically because of his opposition to slavery) are the reasons cited here.  This is not about State's Rights.  It is about State's Rights to hold slaves.  Pay particular attention to the designation of the States on both sides of the battle.  The are the "Slaveholding states" and Non-slaveholding states."  They are not the "Federal" or "Union" States and "Confederate States" nor the "Lincoln-supporting" and "Non-Lincoln Supporting" states.  The issue is slavery.  It is cut and dried. 

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm

"The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. "

[Amianthus]

It is cut and dried. 

It's so cut and dried that there were no slave holding states in the Union.

Oh wait. There were 5 that did not secede at all and another 4 that did not secede until Union troops started marching through their territory.

[Stray Pooch]

It is cut and dried. 

It's so cut and dried that there were no slave holding states in the Union.

Oh wait. There were 5 that did not secede at all and another 4 that did not secede until Union troops started marching through their territory.

So what?  We are not discussing the reasons why slaveholding states REMAINED in the union, we are discussing why slaveholding states LEFT the union.  Had all of the slaveholding states remained, the Civil War would not have occurred and this debate would be moot.  Some states left after the initial wave, it is true, but the war began, was prosecuted, and ended over the issue of slavery.  Had there been no slavery, there would have been no civil war.

Look at what Missouri's Declaration said "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

How about Texas? 

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. "

The civil war was fought over slavery.  Cut and dried.

[Amianthus]

So what?  We are not discussing the reasons why slaveholding states REMAINED in the union, we are discussing why slaveholding states LEFT the union.

Then why did you say:

Pay particular attention to the designation of the States on both sides of the battle.  The are the "Slaveholding states" and Non-slaveholding states."  They are not the "Federal" or "Union" States and "Confederate States" nor the "Lincoln-supporting" and "Non-Lincoln Supporting" states.

You clearly say that one side of the war was "slave holding states" and the other side was "non-slave holding states". However, this statement is not true. And the document you linked is no more or no less political than the document I referenced. If my reference can be discounted because it's "political" so can your document.

Look at what Missouri's Declaration said "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

You realize that the Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, right?

[Stray Pooch]

Then why did you say:

Pay particular attention to the designation of the States on both sides of the battle.  The are the "Slaveholding states" and Non-slaveholding states."  They are not the "Federal" or "Union" States and "Confederate States" nor the "Lincoln-supporting" and "Non-Lincoln Supporting" states.

You clearly say that one side of the war was "slave holding states" and the other side was "non-slave holding states". However, this statement is not true.

No I did NOT state that.  Read it again.  I was pointing out that the DECLARATION called the two sides "slaveholding" and "non-slaveholding" states.  I was citing this as evidence that the South (or in this case South Carolina) viewed slavery as the issue that led to secession (which, in turn, led to the war).

And the document you linked is no more or no less political than the document I referenced. If my reference can be discounted because it's "political" so can your document.

That is not a valid comparison.  The CJ Resolution was intended to placate slaveholding states still in the union and smooth the way to resolve the crisis.  As such, it was intended specifically to further a particular political agenda.  The Declarations I cited were not intended to do that.  They were, exactly as our Declaration of Independence was, intended to simply state the fact of separation and list the reasons pertaining to the act.  These documents are, by nature, political and of course are designed to influence public opinion.  But that is different from trying to effect a certain end.  The end in question was already accomplished.  The Declarations simply pointed that out to the world.  The South recognized that the secession was over slavery - and with little exception nothing else.  The C-J Resolution, of course, intended to try to convince the South (and more importantly the holdout Northern slave states) that the war was NOT about slavery, but about union.  The mere fact that the C-J Resolution had to be adopted at all (and it was repealed only a few months after adoption) is proof that slavery was the underlying issue. 

Saying that the Civil War was not fought over slavery but preservation of the union is the same as saying Roe Vs. Wade was a decision about privacy - not abortion.   Technically, that argument is correct.  Practically, that's nonsense.

Look at what Missouri's Declaration said "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

You realize that the Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, right?

Of course, but what does the Missouri Compromise have to do with what I quoted from Missouri's Declaration?  Perhaps I should have been more explicit.  I was quoting from Missouri's Declaration seceding from the union.  The Texas Declaration was similarly quoted.  These were the actual documents declaring secession.  I believe I did mention the Missouri compromise (probably the reason for the ambiguity) as something cited (at least implicitly) in some of those Declarations.  Each of these Declarations to some extent cited the history of slavery and the legislation and court decisions leading up to the secession.  So the MC might have been mentioned in that context.  In such a context, citing it would have been completely proper.  But in the case you quote, I was not referring to the Missouri Compromise.  Missouri declared the cause of her secession to be completely identified with slavery.  It doesn't get more cut and dried than that.

[Plane]

This is why I have no respect for libertarianism.  .......

Wow

What a great post !

I am awed at your ability to casually toss off such excellent essays, which would raise the standards of the tipical National publication. I don't need to agree with all of it to recognise the excellence.


Now about the parts I don't agree with;

Lbertrianism is mostly untried , unlike Communism there has never been  totaltaran Libertarian government to demonstrate how badly it can go wrong , but does a totaliarian Libertarian seem  likely?  It is the nature of untested ideals to be uncmpromised and unscarred by  implemetation amoung real people who are such cussed creatures that no system of Ideals has ever lasted long in any society without beomeing compromised or corrupted. But a Libertrian does not preach his ideals in vain .

Harry Truman once stated that in the USA no good idea is ever forgotten , he was refering to the ideas and proposas of the Populists that had survived longer than the party and were adopted by his Democratic party , in a truncated and compromised form. Libertarians can perhaps eventually convince the people that they have the nswers and get elected as a party , ut even if they never do if they expound their ideas and uplift their ideals  those concepts that appeal to the public strongly will never be forgotten and ill likely be adopted by whichever party can improve its appeal thereby.


ON the CSA  , how many clauses of the Articles of Cnfederation are still in force? How has one bit of it remaied in force when the rest of it has lost its function? IN the USA there is precident for dissolveing a Union and establishig a new Nation and this precident was what was attempted by the CSA . I don't see Lincon as haveing strong constitutinal grounds for legality in preventing the Secession , neither did he . Lincon was the sort to cut the Gordian knot rather than try to unravel it. The Civil War as I understand it was a grand failure of Government trying to cope with its people , this is reciprocally a failure of the people to do right. A Government of the People can't be a whole lot better than those people.

[Stray Pooch]

Wow

What a great post !

I am awed at your ability to casually toss off such excellent essays, which would raise the standards of the tipical National publication. I don't need to agree with all of it to recognise the excellence.

NOW how am I supposed to get my hat on tomorrow?

Now about the parts I don't agree with;

Oh, THAT's how. 

Lbertrianism is mostly untried , unlike Communism there has never been  totaltaran Libertarian government to demonstrate how badly it can go wrong , but does a totaliarian Libertarian seem  likely?  It is the nature of untested ideals to be uncmpromised and unscarred by  implemetation amoung real people who are such cussed creatures that no system of Ideals has ever lasted long in any society without beomeing compromised or corrupted. But a Libertrian does not preach his ideals in vain .

Harry Truman once stated that in the USA no good idea is ever forgotten , he was refering to the ideas and proposas of the Populists that had survived longer than the party and were adopted by his Democratic party , in a truncated and compromised form. Libertarians can perhaps eventually convince the people that they have the nswers and get elected as a party , ut even if they never do if they expound their ideas and uplift their ideals  those concepts that appeal to the public strongly will never be forgotten and ill likely be adopted by whichever party can improve its appeal thereby.

As evidenced by the Republican interest in libertarian values (driven on, no doubt, by the defection of many conservatives to the big L party).  I think you are absolutely right about the libertarian ideal never being tried in full, and that does give one pause.  However, I think there is a sufficient history of adoption of ideals consistent with libertarianism to prognosticate the ends likely from such ideals. 

ON the CSA  , how many clauses of the Articles of Cnfederation are still in force? How has one bit of it remaied in force when the rest of it has lost its function?

Any portion not superseded by the Constitution or subsequent case law would be still useful as precedent.  As a very simple example, Article I is in full force.  We still call ourselves the "United States of America."  It is very clear, of course, that the A of C are not the driving force they were prior to 1788, but then again, the Declaration of Independence is a legal document often cited and it was written five years prior to the A of C.  The fact is, since most of the Articles of Confederation pertained to the way the government would be run, and that was an obvious failure, the Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation in terms of how the government would be run and what powers were granted to the government (and by government I mean, of course, the Federal government).

Of course, the original intent of the convention authorized by Congress in 1787 was NOT to create a Constitution or supersede the Articles, but rather to modify the Articles of Confederation to give the Federal government more power.  Several delegates actually left the convention for that reason, thinking that they had overstepped the authority granted them by Congress.  But ultimately the Congress approved the Constitution and sent it to the states for ratification.  Again, the union was not dissolved, but rather modified.  We celebrate our national birth from 1776, not 1788. 

IN the USA there is precident for dissolveing a Union and establishig a new Nation and this precident was what was attempted by the CSA . I don't see Lincon as haveing strong constitutinal grounds for legality in preventing the Secession , neither did he . Lincon was the sort to cut the Gordian knot rather than try to unravel it. The Civil War as I understand it was a grand failure of Government trying to cope with its people , this is reciprocally a failure of the people to do right. A Government of the People can't be a whole lot better than those people.

Irrespective of the legality of secession, Lincoln overstepped his Constitutional authority in many ways.  Of course, the Constitution DID grant the Federal government the right to suppress insurrection (Art I, Sec   likely included as a response to Shay's Rebellion.  And the SCOTUS ruled in Texas vs. White 74 US 700 (1868) and other cases that the perpetual union in the Articles of Confederation made the rebellion illegal. But Lincoln approved such things as inappropriately detaining and trying US citizens in military courts, which the SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional in Ex Parte Milligan.  (Interestingly, that case was cited in Padilla vs. Bush, since the similarities are striking. )

[Universe Prince]

BT's point was that government was necessary.

Was it? I don't recall the discussion being about the need for government to exist. Was someone questioning the need for government? In the context of the discussion at the time, BT's point seemed to be that big government was necessary, that ending slavery was an example of such, and therefore to oppose big government was to oppose the ending of slavery. Hence his question.

He used the general expression that a "program" was in place to end slavery and you focused on it and changed the debate from the effacy of government to whether or not the war was a "program."  That's a semantical argument.

Actually I believe my objection, at least initially, was to the notion that the government had some sort of program or project to end slavery. As best I can tell, it did not, and barring the Civil War, slavery would likely have continued for some time. When BT decided to try to call the war, the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment a program, I pointed out what a laughable notion that is. You may call it semantics, but it goes to the core of his argument. There was no program, general or otherwise.

In fact, you certainly CAN call a war a program, since that term is generic.  But whether that term covers a war, a new cabinet department or an ongoing debate in congress or among the people for that matter, is a completely irrelevant point.  The point is that the end of slavery required a government - not the fine good will of the Southern white people.

So you're saying BT's argument was a strawman? I am fairly certain that no one at any point in this thread suggested that the government should have done nothing about slavery.

The point was that government was required to do the job and the question was rhetorical.

Either you're being naive, or you're expecting me to be.

I'd like to point out that I never said either that the government was not needed to or should not have abolished slavery.

Who said you did?

Well, so far you keep talking like I was arguing otherwise.

These conversations would be easier if you would stop assuming that by making a general point about libertarianism I wasn't personally attacking you.

Well, then maybe you shouldn't start a general argument against libertarianism with "This is why I have no respect for libertarianism.  You are making semantic arguments, UP." Sure looks like you were talking to me. And your quote of my post sure did look like you were responding directly to me. I appear to be the only libertarian in this particular dog fight, so why wouldn't I, why shouldn't I take it personally?

My desire to point out the obvious wouldn't exist were it not for the general lack of understanding that libertarians have about the Constitution and the role of government.

Not sure how this is something I shouldn't take personally. But let's keep this polite. A difference of opinion does not mean a lack of understanding.

libertarians want to llive in a dream world where moral behavior eliminates the need for government.

Complete nonsense. I don't know of any libertarians who think we can get rid of government and just depend on everyone to act morally, or that expect that at some time in the future everyone will be moral. This is why I have hard time believing you know much of anything about libertarianism.

Then how do you explain this comment you made earlier in the thread?   "Yes, BT, We all need the kind, compassionate and leviathan government, who only ever looks out for the good of the citizens, to save us all from the wild, frightening and oh so dangerous world in which we live."  I'd characterize that (and I did) as ridiculing those who are rely on government to protect them from the big, bad, world.  I think that's a pretty reasonable paraphrase of your comment.  What would you call it?

I would call it sarcasm. In context it is sarcasm about trusting government and politicians to always do the right thing.

I know you have made that argument.  Again, I don't question your sincerity, I just think you fail to understand the full significance of the argument.

That's kinda what I figured you meant. And you wonder why I took your attack personally?

As to your patience level and your cryptic threat to tell me 2 blanks 4 blanks 8 blanks

Not a threat, just a comment about my level of patience with your post. Did not mean it to seem like a threat.

But there are some posters on this forum - and you are at the top of my list - from whom I expect a higher standard of debate.  Damn right I'm being self-righteous, but I find it hypocritical to make that accusation given the implicitly self-righteous nature of your sarcastic style in this thread.

To be honest, BT kinda brings that out in me. (Not saying it's his fault. I know it's really my own choice.) His posts, or at least the ones that seem directed toward me, seem rather smug and patronizing to me, and I have a tendency to respond in kind. When people get smug and superior with me, I usually give it back, and usually sarcastically. And quite frankly, when someone is telling me libertarians don't understand the Constitution and the role of government, that doesn't really make me want to ease up.

I am not talking about the motives of libertarianism - I am talking about the results of the philosophy.

Are you? You said, "But the libertarian response to that is to basically do away with the government and let the free market and personal choice rule the day." Seemed like a perfect place to mention that not all libertarians are anarchists. You know, as in not all libertarians want to do away with the government. You made a blanket statement. I pointed out one reason rather obvious reason why it was wrong.

Second, there are lots of ideas within libertarianism about how to protect the rights of individuals, even in the absence of a government proper.

But those are ideas based on a flawed philosophy and - as in communism - they sound great in theory but fail to account for human nature.  I see very good arguments in libertarian principle, but I see them as flawed.

Fail to account for human nature how, exactly?

I find your complaint that I "righteously and indignantly shut my mind" to be specious.

Given that you took to lecturing me with arguments I've made myself many times and that you seem to think libertarianism is some sort of dreamy plan for chaos, misery and destruction, I find hard to believe that you have an open mind on the matter.

I have listened to - even flirted with - libertarian philosophy for years.  I have rejected it on merit, not on narrow-mindedness.

Well, when you want to make that case rather than rant about how libertarians don't understand the Constitution or human nature, let me know.

As it happens, the overwhelming majority of Americans have done so as well

I doubt the overwhelming majority of Americans know enough or have thought enough about libertarianism to have rejected it on its merits. Most non-libertarians I encounter, should the subject of politics ever come up and I bother to get involved, haven't the first clue what libertarianism is, many have never even heard of it. They reject Ron Paul because they think of him as that kook who wants to go back to the gold standard or bring all the troops home. The fact that they think he wants to go back to gold standard shows they heard only some sound bite, rather than paid attention to what he said.

Because I disagree with something you feel so strongly about you accuse me of shutting my mind.

Nope. Disagreement I don't mind at all. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Discussing things with people who disagree with me is exactly why I'm here. Telling me you have no respect for libertarianism is a sign of more than a disagreement. I don't agree with socialism, but I can respect it. I don't agree with your particular sect of Christianity, but I can respect it. And by the way, the whole, "gosh, I know you're sincere, but you're ignorant" bit, imo, indicates something more than a simple disagreement.

It was NOT a stupid question, nor was it intended as a "gotcha."

Are you kidding?

you only ridiculed it because it goes against your concept of what the debate was.

Or maybe because it had nothing to do with my comments.

Again, if you want to argue semantics, maybe it hasn't been said exactly in that fashion.  "You're afraid of freedom" (a favorite Boortz-ism) isn't EXACTLY the same as "You're too cowardly to live without big government."  But that is Clintonian logic.

You leave me no choice here but to argue semantics, which is to say, meaning. "Living without government" and "living without big government" are not the same ideas at all. "You're too cowardly to live without big government" is not the same sentiment as "wanting the government to protect you from the big, bad world is cowardice." There are plenty of libertarians who support the idea of government and police and courts and all that. I don't listen to Boortz, but I have occasionally read opinion pieces by him. I don't recall  Neal Boortz saying there should be no government to protect people. As I understand it, Boortz is one of the minds behind the "Fair Tax" idea, so he must be okay with government continuing to function, at least for now. And even anarcho-capitalists recognize the need for methods of protecting rights and property. So I find your blanket comment "Libertarians claim that wanting the government to protect you from the big, bad world is cowardice" to be rather difficult to believe.

I find your pattern interesting.  You say something, then say you "won't say" that something in order to use as a launching point for an ad hominem attack.  You've done that several times.

Yeah. I have.

If you are that upset, why bother to waste the time (which you claim is scarce enough not to waste on substantive debate) answering posts with which you disagree at all?

I did not say my time was scarce enough not to waste on substantive debate. I believe I claimed that "even if I had the time to try to counter you point for point, I doubt seriously it would make one whit of difference." The idea being that substantive argument on my part would yield nothing. I'm not seeing much to alter that perception.

Anyway, I suppose I could not reply and let folks like you and BT imply that libertarians are little more than fools lacking understanding of reality, but I guess I just dislike that enough to feel I should respond in some way. And frankly, I'm kinda tired of trying to play this completely nice all the time, because that doesn't seem to make a dent. I make the same comments and arguments here time after time, and yet still I get treated repeatedly to these "libertarians are fools" posts. As I said before, I don't mind disagreement. Disagree with me all you like. But when you start making blanket statements about libertarians not understanding the Constitution or the role of government, or blanket statements about libertarians claiming that anyone who wants government to protect them is a coward, well, golly, I kinda take issue with that. So I'll fight back, but at the same time, I'm also tired of the same old arguments. I'm trying something different here, though it doesn't seem to work any better than being nice did.

But the unintended results of SOME of those types of very sincere stands lead to the very kinds of abuses I cited earlier.

Possibly. But then, there are undesirable unintended consequences for lots of things. Like, oh, I dunno, the Civil War, the New Deal, World War I, World War II, et cetera. No one is denying that sometimes there are unintended results that go bad, least of all libertarians.

The reason I acknowledge, when I can, that I recognize the sincere good intentions of many who fight such battles is because I understand that sometimes a criticism of a particular philosophy can either be taken as a personal attack or a broadbrush of an entire group.  I try to short-circuit that by acknowledging it in advance, but as is evident from this thread, the effort is seldom successful.

Well, the "I know they're sincere but they don't understand" type stuff and comments like "I have no respect for libertarianism" kinda undercut your short-circuit attempts. And I'm not sure how "the general lack of understanding that libertarians have about the Constitution and the role of government" is supposed to come off as something other than a broad-brush.

When I listen to Libertarian Neal Boortz (almost daily), or read what you or Victor or others post on this site, or listen to what a Libertarian candidate publicly states and base my opinion of libertarianism on those sources, I can hardly be accused of basing my opinion on "lies and distortion."

Well, when you talk about libertarianism as "wanting the government to turn a blind eye on abuses of power in the free market, discriminatory practices and wholesale destruction of the environment" that doesn't really lead me to believe that you're paying that much attention to what libertarians say. I have yet to see or hear any libertarian say the government should turn a blind eye to abuses of power in the market (I didn't say "free market" because we don't have one) or wholesale destruction of the environment. Maybe Boortz says these things on his radio show, but if he does, he might be the only one. I certainly have never seen or heard any libertarian propose that libertarian ideas were somehow going to result in a perfect society without need for laws. Even the Anarcho-Capitalist himself, Murray Rothbard, wrote about how laws could work and civil law disputes could be handled in an anarchist society. I think he even wrote about how to handle protection of the environment. So when you talk as if libertarians are expecting some miracle of morality to take hold or that they don't understand the possible consequences of their ideas, well, that makes me believing that you're more than fleetingly familiar with libertarianism quite difficult indeed.

If this, sir, is your idea of patience, I would not like to see you when you lack it.

It's not a pretty sight. Ranting, raving and sometimes even spittle is involved. (That's a joke, man, a joke.)

[Universe Prince]

I'm guessing a lot of people were asleep in history class when the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution was discussed.

Possibly. I was going to refrain from interfering in this part of the conversation, but I decided to go see what the Wiki page to which you linked had to say. And there I found this: "The Corwin Resolution (CONG. GLOBE, 36th Cong. 2d Sess. 1364 (1861)), however, which attempted to constitutionalize slavery, was adopted by the necessary two-thirds in both Houses and actually submitted to the states for ratification. It was ratified by three states before the war pre-empted the debate." That I do not recall having heard of before, but I think it goes to my point that there was not a federal government program to end slavery.

[Universe Prince]

Holy crap. Check this one out:

Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, consideration of the Corwin Amendment then shifted to the state legislatures. Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, declared his support for the proposed amendment: "[H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." (The reference to "implied constitutional law" pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in the Dred Scott case.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

[Amianthus]

Yeah, Lincoln made it clear a number of times that, even though he was abolitionist, he had no problems with keeping or even increasing slavery if it kept the union together.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yeah, Lincoln made it clear a number of times that, even though he was abolitionist, he had no problems with keeping or even increasing slavery if it kept the union together.
================================================
Once the Civil War had begun, he began to alter his views. The South somehow got most of the best generals, and since the war was fought mostly on Southern territory, with the CS Army defending its own land and liberty, the North was running low on troops.

At this point Frederick Douglass convinced Lincoln to allow freedmen and escaped ex-slaves to volunteer for the Union, and of course, the incentive to them had to be freedom for the rest of the slaves, and by 1963 the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, freeing the slaves in all states that had seceded from the Union. After this, Lincoln stopped offering any sort of deal on slavery to the seceded states. It would have done little good, anyway, as the war caused the South to become even more obstinate in its resistence to the North and Abolistionists.

After the War, and the 13th and 14th Amendments were passed, there were still slaves held outside the US in the territories, especially Oklahoma, by Indian tribes. The Choctaws, for one example,  refused to release their slaves until forced by the government, and even after they freed them, they refused to grant them Choctaw citizenship in their lands. These slaves were not residents of the US, either and it took a long time before they were recognized as such.

There was a bloody Civil War fought in Oklahoma, where the CSA promised to reward the Seven Civilized Tribes with Oklahoma statehood in return for helping the Southern cause. The last Confederate general to surrender was Stand Waitie, a Cherokee.