The War of Southern Aggression

[paperview]

Kevin - it was OUR Fort. It belonged to the Federal Government.

South Carolina had no more right to its possession than Kentucky does to Fort Knox

and it was worth 500K dead, right?

Ask the people who started the War.

That would be the South.

 

[Ravi]

Kevin - it was OUR Fort. It belonged to the Federal Government.

South Carolina had no more right to its possession than Kentucky does to Fort Knox

and it was worth 500K dead, right?

Yes. Ending slavery was worth it. We were finally forced to abide by the constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Kevin - it was OUR Fort. It belonged to the Federal Government.

South Carolina had no more right to its possession than Kentucky does to Fort Knox

and it was worth 500K dead, right?

Yes. Ending slavery was worth it. We were finally forced to abide by the constitution.

The Constitution supported slavery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The CW and the 13th Amendment fixed a flawed document.

The sad thing is that we had to fix some hammerheads here in town about 35 years ago. I surely do not understand racists, black or white or red or William Joyce. I simply don't.

And the school board is very careful of who is hired for the history positions: no unreconstructed dum dums allowed. We can tolerate leftists and libertarians but not racist dum dums.

KevinKennedy, I disagree with you concerning Lincoln. However, I am interested in him the most as well.

 

[Ravi]

and it was worth 500K dead, right?

Yes. Ending slavery was worth it. We were finally forced to abide by the constitution.

The Constitution supported slavery.

No, it didn't. It was interpreted to do so, but it didn't.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes. Ending slavery was worth it. We were finally forced to abide by the constitution.

The Constitution supported slavery.

No, it didn't. It was interpreted to do so, but it didn't.

Mandating that they be returned to their masters and only counting them as 3/5's of a person is supporting slavery in my opinion.

 

[nraforlife]

.........
Yes. Ending slavery was worth it. .............

Why? BTW the 1787 Constitution was perfectly OK with slavery.

 

[paperview]

The Constitution supported slavery.

No, it didn't. It was interpreted to do so, but it didn't.

Mandating that they be returned to their masters and only counting them as 3/5's of a person is supporting slavery in my opinion.

I agree with that.

That was most certainly was the "fundamental flaw" represented in the Document to which Obama referred and has taken a fair amount of heat over by Right Wing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, it didn't. It was interpreted to do so, but it didn't.

Mandating that they be returned to their masters and only counting them as 3/5's of a person is supporting slavery in my opinion.

I agree with that.

That was most certainly was the "fundamental flaw" represented in the Document to which Obama referred and has taken a fair amount of heat over by Right Wing.

I would agree that slavery was the biggest flaw of the Constitution, and the sanction of slavery began the downfall of classical liberalism in the U.S. all together.

 

[paperview]

Mandating that they be returned to their masters and only counting them as 3/5's of a person is supporting slavery in my opinion.

I agree with that.

That was most certainly was the "fundamental flaw" represented in the Document to which Obama referred and has taken a fair amount of heat over by Right Wing.

I would agree that slavery was the biggest flaw of the Constitution, and the sanction of slavery began the downfall of classical liberalism in the U.S. all together.

No ideology is without confliction, and that certainly was a major one.

Thank God we fixed that one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Classical liberalism basically values greatly an individual's freedom, that freedom being based on rights naturally outside the realm of government to grant or withhold. Thus the codification of slavery by the southern and border states required the destruction of a South antithetical to classical liberalism and to a union that had been expanding the franchise..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Classical liberalism basically values greatly an individual's freedom, that freedom being based on rights naturally outside the realm of government to grant or withhold. Thus the codification of slavery by the southern and border states required the destruction of a South antithetical to classical liberalism and to a union that had been expanding the franchise..

The problem being that the classical liberals were largely those who were either slaveowners in the south, or those who supported slavery in the south and north. Slavery was antithetical to everything the classical liberals claimed to believe, but we can't deny that classical liberals were the biggest proponents of slavery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You err in subscribing to the idea that the majority of classical liberals were slave owners or supporters of slavery. That is an opinion that you will not be apply to quantify, I think. But, if you can, do so. Your thesis is interesting.

 

[Rogue 9]

Let's append to that classical liberals in the United States. Frederic Bastiat in his essay The Law denounced slavery as an incalculable evil, and though he died in 1850 and thus could not voice his opinion on the Confederacy as such, John Stuart Mill very much was, and this is what he had to say in his Autobiography:

Before this, however, the state of public affairs had become extremely critical, by the commencement of the American civil war. My strongest feelings were engaged in this struggle, which, I felt from the beginning, was destined to be a turning point, for good or evil, of the course of human affairs for an indefinite duration. Having been a deeply interested observer of the Slavery quarrel in America, during the many years that preceded the open breach, I knew that it was in all its stages an aggressive enterprise of the slave-owners to extend the territory of slavery; under the combined influences of pecuniary interest, domineering temper, and the fanaticism of a class for its class privileges, influences so fully and powerfully depicted in the admirable work of my friend Professor Cairnes, "The Slave Power." Their success, if they succeeded, would be a victory of the powers of evil which would give courage to the enemies of progress and damp the spirits of its friends all over the civilized world, while it would create a formidable military power, grounded on the worst and most anti-social form of the tyranny of men over men, and, by destroying for a long time the prestige of the great democratic republic, would give to all the privileged classes of Europe a false confidence, probably only to be extinguished in blood.

So no, support for slavery wasn't a classical liberal thing. It wasn't even an American classical liberal thing in large part; the slaveholders among the leaders of the Revolution intended for slavery to end as soon as it was economically viable for it to do so. George Washington freed his slaves in his will even though the laws of the state of Virginia made it illegal for him to do so. No, it was a thing peculiar to those in the South who professed to follow the example of their Virginian forebears, but repudiated their principles while venerating their memory.

Also note: I wasn't just pulling the idea that Confederate success would embolden European aristocracy out of my ass; it really was a major concern at the time, and not just among Union scholars and officials.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You err in subscribing to the idea that the majority of classical liberals were slave owners or supporters of slavery. That is an opinion that you will not be apply to quantify, I think. But, if you can, do so. Your thesis is interesting.

The Democratic Party, descended from Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, was the party of classical liberalism, as opposed to the Federalist, Whig, and Republican Parties, all of which were big government parties. The platform of the Democratic Party of 1856 has this to say:

Resolved, That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well-considered declarations of former conventions upon the sectional issue of domestic slavery, and concerning the reserved rights of the states—

1. That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that all such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts of the Abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

2. That the foregoing proposition covers and was intended to embrace the whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress, and therefore the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures, settled by the Congress of 1850—"the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor" included; which act, being designed to carry out an express provision of the constitution, can not, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.

The Democratic Platform (1856)

And there's plenty more there, as well. Now while you're right that I can't prove that every classical liberal at the very least supported slavery, I can say that the political party of classical liberalism did support slavery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You suggest that classical liberalism opposed strong national governments. That simply cannot be supported by evidence or by analysis. Go for it, though, and at least I will read it avidly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

With the king gone, a group of middle-class radicals emerged called the Levellers. They protested that not even Parliament had any authority to usurp the natural, God-given rights of the people. Religion, they declared, was a matter of individual conscience: it should have no connection with the state. State-granted monopolies were likewise an infringement of natural liberty. A generation later, John Locke, drawing on the tradition of natural law that had been kept alive and elaborated by the Scholastic theologians, set forth a powerful liberal model of man, society, and state. Every man, he held, is innately endowed with certain natural rights. These consist in his fundamental right to what is his property — that is, his life, liberty, and "estates" (or material goods). Government is formed simply the better to preserve the right to property. When, instead of protecting the natural rights of the people, a government makes war upon them, the people may alter or abolish it. The Lockean philosophy continued to exert influence in England for generations to come. In time, its greatest impact would be in the English-speaking colonies in North America.

The Rise, Fall, and Renaissance of Classical Liberalism, Part 1

 

[JakeStarkey]

With the king gone, a group of middle-class radicals emerged called the Levellers. They protested that not even Parliament had any authority to usurp the natural, God-given rights of the people. Religion, they declared, was a matter of individual conscience: it should have no connection with the state. State-granted monopolies were likewise an infringement of natural liberty. A generation later, John Locke, drawing on the tradition of natural law that had been kept alive and elaborated by the Scholastic theologians, set forth a powerful liberal model of man, society, and state. Every man, he held, is innately endowed with certain natural rights. These consist in his fundamental right to what is his property — that is, his life, liberty, and "estates" (or material goods). Government is formed simply the better to preserve the right to property. When, instead of protecting the natural rights of the people, a government makes war upon them, the people may alter or abolish it. The Lockean philosophy continued to exert influence in England for generations to come. In time, its greatest impact would be in the English-speaking colonies in North America.

The Rise, Fall, and Renaissance of Classical Liberalism, Part 1

OK, I finally understand your philosophy. I think Locke and Mills would disagree, but that is what make discussions go around. I will note that The Future of Freedom Foundation is a hardcore free-market libertarian entity that is basically nothing more than a "get off my property" organization.

 

[Rogue 9]

You err in subscribing to the idea that the majority of classical liberals were slave owners or supporters of slavery. That is an opinion that you will not be apply to quantify, I think. But, if you can, do so. Your thesis is interesting.

The Democratic Party, descended from Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, was the party of classical liberalism, as opposed to the Federalist, Whig, and Republican Parties, all of which were big government parties. The platform of the Democratic Party of 1856 has this to say:

Resolved, That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well-considered declarations of former conventions upon the sectional issue of domestic slavery, and concerning the reserved rights of the states—

1. That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that all such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts of the Abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

2. That the foregoing proposition covers and was intended to embrace the whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress, and therefore the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures, settled by the Congress of 1850—"the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor" included; which act, being designed to carry out an express provision of the constitution, can not, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.

The Democratic Platform (1856)

And there's plenty more there, as well. Now while you're right that I can't prove that every classical liberal at the very least supported slavery, I can say that the political party of classical liberalism did support slavery.

Jesus Christ. Those provisions of the platform flatly contradict each other. Seriously, read the words; first they say that the federal government has no right to interfere with the domestic affairs of the states, and then they advocate the strict enforcement and sustaining of the Fugitive Slave Act, which was to date the biggest such act of interference the United States had ever seen. I mean, really?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You err in subscribing to the idea that the majority of classical liberals were slave owners or supporters of slavery. That is an opinion that you will not be apply to quantify, I think. But, if you can, do so. Your thesis is interesting.

The Democratic Party, descended from Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, was the party of classical liberalism, as opposed to the Federalist, Whig, and Republican Parties, all of which were big government parties. The platform of the Democratic Party of 1856 has this to say:

Resolved, That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well-considered declarations of former conventions upon the sectional issue of domestic slavery, and concerning the reserved rights of the states—

1. That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that all such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts of the Abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

2. That the foregoing proposition covers and was intended to embrace the whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress, and therefore the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures, settled by the Congress of 1850—"the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor" included; which act, being designed to carry out an express provision of the constitution, can not, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.

The Democratic Platform (1856)

And there's plenty more there, as well. Now while you're right that I can't prove that every classical liberal at the very least supported slavery, I can say that the political party of classical liberalism did support slavery.

Jesus Christ. Those provisions of the platform flatly contradict each other. Seriously, read the words; first they say that the federal government has no right to interfere with the domestic affairs of the states, and then they advocate the strict enforcement and sustaining of the Fugitive Slave Act, which was to date the biggest such act of interference the United States had ever seen. I mean, really?

That's kind of the point. Slavery was opposed to the ideas of classical liberalism.