Posted on 03/20/2013 9:57:49 AM PDT by mnehring
Zo has strong words for neo-confederate libertarians, especially those who infiltrated the CPAC conference. He reminds viewers why some libertarians have no place in the conservative movement, and why Republicans should embrace the vision of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
(Video at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at pjtv.com ...
It's not trolling if you're not obviously insulting people.
Calling individuals "stupid", that's troll-talk.
Refering to some general ideas as "Neo-Confederate" is neither insulting individuals nor trolling, pal. ;-)
Lee'sGhost: "Guess that’s what I would say too if I had no ammo in the intellect department."
But you've used no ammo, zero, zip, nada.
The only serious point you ever made here is: you don't like the term "Neo-Confederate".
You say you don't like "Neo-Confederate" because to your ears it sounds too much like "Neo-Conservative", and G*d forbid anyone should ever confuse the two, right?
But, because you use "no ammo in the intellect department", you refuse to suggest an alternative term, more acceptable to you, or even to define just how it is your views differ from those of other, ahem, "Neo-Confederates".
Anyway, in all fairness, I have to say you're not the worst troll I've seen, even on Free Republic, we used to have posters issuing physical threats -- compared to which just being called "stupid" is pretty mild stuff.
On the other hand, you do seem uniquely focused on the one item it seems really matters to you: the term "Neo-Confederate."
You wish everyone to understand you don't like it, and I think we all agree that is your opinion, FRiend.
;-)
Lincoln's Emancipation didn't free any slaves except those in states "in open rebellion." It was about turning the war into a moral platform on slavery so that no European power -- especially England, which had been waffling -- would dare come in on the side of the South. So it was less concerned with liberating slaves than it was about playing a powerful political trump card, one Lincoln had not dared play earlier lest he risk losing the "border states" like Kentucky and Missouri.
With the Union losing right and left and France and Russia giving serious thought to recognizing the Confederacy -- something they didn't risk doing without England's support -- Lincoln had to find some way to forestall the foreign intervention that would have tipped the war in the South's favor.
"Egalitarian" France and "enlightened" England could not justify entry into a war to defend human slavery.
No, you have it backwards.
By 1860 slave-holders learned their human "property" could do most anything unskilled white workers could do, better, cheaper and with less complaint.
So slavery was on the march -- not just growing cash crops like cotton, sugar cane and tobacco, but also working in mines, building railroads, and labor in manufacturing shops.
Meaning by 1860, for slave-holders the sky was the limit, just so long as they could find new places & jobs for slave labor, there was no need to ever hire "white trash".
Nowhere Man: "...there might have been a drive to have the freed Blacks resettle in Africa or perhaps in the Carribean somewhere if the Confederates would have expanded there."
In fact, there were several plans beginning with President Jefferson, all the way through Lincoln's to purchase freedom and offer resettlement for ex-slaves in Africa.
All such plans were rejected by slave-holders.
Confederate plans to expand into the Caribbean were certainly not to provide homes for freed slaves, but rather to provide new land for slave-holder operations.
Nowhere Man: "I just wanted to point out as you did the Civil War was not quite the noble war to end slavery.
The North really did not care to end or or not, basically Lincoln freed the slaves to stick it to the South, it was just a tool to do that."
But the 1860 Republican platform did not call for freeing any slaves anywhere.
It merely opposed slavery's expansion.
So there was no automatic effort to free all slaves, just because the Confederacy had declared war, on May 6, 1861.
After May of 1861, Lincoln's first concern was to defeat the military power which had provoked, started and declared war on the United States.
Of course, Lincoln knew from the beginning that war meant the President could declare runaway slaves to be "contraband" and free them.
But his actual sequence of events was slow and deliberate, in hopes of keeping the Unionist loyalty of slave-holders in Border States.
Also, generally, by the ex-slaves.
If I remember correctly, there was a disastrous attempt under Lincoln to colonize freed slaves somewhere in or around Haiti. Most of the colonists died of starvation or disease.
All such attempts foundered in practice due to the sheer cost of doing any such thing with 4M people, even if they were willing to participate.
The same reason, BTW, all attempts to do compensated emancipation never went very far. At a time when the entire federal budget for 1860 totaled $60M, the $3000M value of all the slaves was more than a little daunting.
In 1862, 90% of all slaves lived in those states "in open rebellion".
Iron Jack: "It was about turning the war into a moral platform on slavery so that no European power -- especially England, which had been waffling -- would dare come in on the side of the South."
Partially true.
But the larger reason was: the entire Confederacy consisted of only five million whites supported by nearly four million slaves.
So every Confederate slave freed and put to work for the Union was a two-fer -- South down one, North up one.
And abolition added another moral dimension to the war.
Therefore, even though abolition was not on the Republican 1860 platform, the logic of war made it a necessity.
And should those states have returned to the Union, they would no longer have been in rebellion and the slaves would have returned to their former status: property.
It always puzzles me when people (not necessarily lost causers) claim that America lost with the WBTS. Yes, I recognize the lazy tendency to bundle every negativity that has occurred since as “Lincoln’s Fault” and I recognize how foolish it is on the face of it.
How can tearing something ever make it better? How could the confeds, who carbon-copied the US Constitution - except for the memorializing of the southron right to own other humans in perpetuity ever hope to be anything superior than the union they rebelled against?
What possible good could ever come from a den of thieves born of insurrection and treason?
Even if Lincoln had been as feckless as Buchanan and let the rebellious south trample on the Constitution and 80 years of cooperative effort and mutual defense, the two countries would be set upon an unavoidable path of conflict. Both the nation and the fledgling upstart had designs on the same territory and it would have been generational war.
Sure we have problems. but it could have been much, much worse.
OOoooo... Did I hwurt him little feewings. Poor wittle baby. I
Now if get it. You’re one of those immature dipwads that has to have the last comment no matter how stupid you’ve made yourself look.
Sigh.... go ahead. Be my guest.
See my post above.
Gutted, fileted, floured and sauted.
At your service....
No, our Founders won both of those.
Nowhere Man: "I know some say you could get slaves to run the machines, but there are some machines that need skilled labor to run them plus the slaves could sabotage them.
Even if I have to pay more for labor, most likely it would be offset, (I'm taking the view of a plantation or business owner here for sake of argument) by someone who would be loyal to me."
It's important to remember that slaves rarely competed for employment against skilled white workers, but they did compete successfully against unskilled workers, hence the name "white trash".
"Trash" are workers so unskilled they can't compete against slaves.
But, the Industrial Revolution produced many jobs for unskilled workers -- factory, transportation and farm jobs.
For example, a typical large farm machine in those days took several men to operate, only one of whom needed to be skilled, the others could be "white trash" or slaves, whichever worked better-cheaper.
Nowhere Man: "The Civil War opened up the first true door to the expansion of runaway government powers."
I don't agree, of course, since there was no major expansion of Federal powers until the Progressive Era beginning about 100 years ago.
But even to the degree what you say is true, the blame for it goes not to Lincoln, but to the Confederacy which provoked, started and declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.
Sure, that was the last hope of Confederate negotiators with Lincoln at war's end, early 1865 -- they would agree to surrender if Lincoln would agree to preserve slavery.
But Lincoln would have none of it, and his response was to rush through passing the 13th Amendment, to make dead certain slavery could never again raise its ugly head.
I still disagree. The war was really over States rights and trade. The South wanted access to foreign markets for their goods but the North was in their way. Slavery was a side issue at best and Lincoln did not care one way or the other although it was a tool to stick to to the Confederates. I guess it all depends on what you believe and who writes the history, since the South lost, sometimes they were seen as the villains. It really comes down to two things, who won and whose ox is being gored. I still think on the trade and States rights issues, the Confederates were right. Chattel slavery was dying, I think the Confederates would have given it up around the time Brazil did, the 1880’s, certainly by 1900 or if your an extreme pessimist, 1920’s. As to the two countries living side by side, who knows, maybe over time, it would be like the US and Canada and had WWI and WWII happened without too many butterflies, we could have been allies, I’m sure we would have been during the Cold War.
Actually the slaves were worth ~$3B, not $300M. My bad. That’s 50 years worth of the prewar federal budget.
You are right about France. But Russia was pro-Union throughout the war.
Please explain to me how the North was preventing the South from accessing foreign markets for their goods. The US Consitution specifically prohibits any taxes or tariffs on exports, so there were none.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.