Posted on 09/24/2001 3:10:00 AM PDT by Ada Coddington
No, Lysander Spooner condemned the US military for fighting the Confederacy.
I don't think so.
States built on gross and direct violations of human rights (be it totalitarianism,
communism, slavocracy or Naziism) have no "right to exist" and it is within the self-defense rights
of free men to prosecute them as they would a common criminal.
See http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39fce5ba5cc1.htm
Nope. They just wanted him gone.
88 Posted on 09/24/2001 05:53:52 PDT by Inspector Harry Callahan
This is a false statement. Knock it off.
Are you actually going to address my question?
(Actually I think you would have been more correct to say "the Union Army"; in as much as the US (note I followed your preference for no periods) had been dissolved at the time by the secession of the southern states to form the Confederacy.
Looting, flogging, and kidnapping civilians aren't terrorist tactics? John Brown was a terrorist, Lysander Spooner was his advocate.
Error? Deliberate misquotation.
Back that up!
"the slaveholders would never had dared, in the face of the world, to attempt to overthrow a government that gave freedom to all, for the sake of establishing in its place one that should make slaves of those who, by the existing constitution, were free." (pp.2-3)
By defending their own freedom, rather than slavery, Southerners gained a great psychological and moral advantage that carried them through four years of war. In agreeing that the Constitution protected slavery, and by proposing compromises in 1861 to prevent succession, Sumner and others only weakened the moral position of the North. Against the Northern politicians, generally, Spooner charged that "upon your heads, more even, if possible, than upon the slaveholders themselves, (who have acted only in accordance with their associations, interests, and avowed principles as slaveholders) rests the blood of this horrible, unnecessary, and therefore guilty, war." (Letter to Sumner, p.3)
================
Spooner did not speak against the US military for taking action to end slavery, he spoke against the North's tacit admission that slavery was Constitutional and merely needed reforming while prosecuting the war over the issue of seccession.
I didn't forget them. It's just that Jeff wouldn't have got the point. He probably considers them to be reliable sources of information as most sheeple do. Yikes! I just heard there is a tornado 15 minutes away and headed for my area. Time to unass this floor and head for the basement. See you later.
A failure to capitalize? That takes state-worshiper paranoi to new heights.
Sinkspur made an accusation which is corroborated by demidog's own words. Do you deny he said what I quoted him as saying? Click on the links. He speaks for himself. As I said, demidog's views are not representative of libertarianism as a whole. He did not personally favor child porn, of course, but he did specifically oppose laws prohibiting possession of it. You can deny it all you want, but the facts are the facts.
You attempted to give it credibility by jumping in on an attack on a person who is not here to defend themselves.
His words are on the record. What, I'm not supposed to QUOTE HIM DIRECTLY just because he is not here?
I will assume that you personally never criticize anyone who is not present to defend themselves. No one. Not a politician, not another freeper. No one.
You are beneath contempt.
Yawn.
Good thing I could care less what you think, or my feelings might be hurt. I quote someone's words, with links to the original, and you respond by personally attacking me? Go read Storm Orphan's #290 for a lesson in how to disagree without being disagreeable.
In a broadside printed in 1858, Spooner spelled out how such a right could be exercised. First, groups should form in the North to send arms, aid, and even to fight in the South. Groups of Black citizens in the South should also "form themselves into bands, build forts in the forests, and there collect arms, stores, horses, everything that will enable them to sustain themselves, and carry on their warfare upon the Slaveholders." Such guerrilla forces could (until the anti-slavery forces were strong enough for outright war) capture, strip and flog individual slaveowners, in front of their slaves in order to undermine the master’s authority. These forces, North as well as South could live by robbing the slaveowners.
"The state of slavery is a state of was, in this case it is a just war, on the part of the negroes - a war for liberty, and recompense of injuries; and necessity justifies them in carrying it on by the only means their oppressors have left them. In was, the plunder of enemies is as legitimate as the killing of them; and stratagem is as legitimate as open force."
It's 1938. If independent elements in the U.S. had advocated and supplied material and
ordnance to Jewish guerillas in Nazi Germany to conduct guerilla operations that
included a plot to kidnap or kill Hitler (a civilian), would that have been "terrorism?"
Government officials are considered hard targets in wartime.
On the night of May 24, 1856, John Brown and his company of Free State volunteers murdered five men settled along the Pottawatomie Creek in southeastern Kansas. The victims were prominently associated with the pro-slavery Law and Order Party, but were not themselves slave owners. This assault occurred three days after Border Ruffians from Missouri burned and pillaged the anti-slavery haven of Lawrence, and two days after Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner was severely beaten by Senator Preston Brooks of South Carolina.At the Doyle farm, James and two of his sons, William and Drury, were dragged outside and hacked up with short, heavy sabres donated to Brown in Akron, Ohio.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/CONTEXTS/Kansas/jbrown.html
1858 [Lysander Spooner] Writes "A Plan for The Abolition of Slavery (and) To The Non-Slaveholders of the South," a plan to abolish slavery through the use of guerilla forces from both the North and the South. It is not carried out because John Brown fears it would alert the South to his plan of attack.
http://members.aol.com/Dreom/spbio.html
John Brown was certainly familiar with Spooner’s work. Gerrit Smith, Spooner’s benefactor, had been very close to Brown, supplying funds for his stays in Kansas and for the Harper’s Ferry raid. Smith made a point of sending his friends copies of Spooner’s Unconstitutionality of Slavery. John Brown and Spooner met in Boston shortly before Harper’s Ferry. And although he was told little about the details of the raid beforehand, Spooner had confidence in its success and, after the raid, admired Brown as a model of just action.
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/BIOch5.htm
When John Brown failed and was imprisoned, Lysander Spooner made another proposal for a guerilla action. He suggested the capture of Governor Henry Wise of Virginia, who could be held hostage for Brown’s release. Spooner planned an attack by sea through the Chesapeake Bay and James River; this area was already a haven for runaway slaves, smugglers, and others outside the law. A group could reach Richmond, the state capital, and kidnap the governor on his evening walk; once out to sea, they would be relatively safe. John LeBarnes wrote Thomas Wentworth Higginson, November 15, 1859, "LS [Lysander Spooner] called upon me yesterday. His idea has certainly the merit of audacity."
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/BIOch5.htm
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.