Michael Peck criticises Ron Paul on secession

[KingNothing]

Because Lincoln successfully goaded them into doing so. It was the single stupidest thing that they could have done, and they went and put their foot right in it.

In the north, the idea of going to war over secession was *very* unpopular - until Ft. Sumter. Whoever was responsible for that decision is the man who doomed the CSA.

Even if the South WAS evil and did illegally attack Fort Sumter, who the hell cares? Is anyone here who advocates secession, or for the right to secede, also advocating violence against anyone at all? In fact, most of us who endorse the idea of secession would like to see it happen so that we might LIMIT violence!

 

[KingNothing]

Prohibiting peaceful secession only guarantees violent revolution. Fucking Lincoln.

Preventing peaceful secession is like being in a relationship and not letting your other-half leave if he/she wants out. Why on Earth would you want to be so intimately involved with someone who does not want to be with you? How is that a worthwhile situation? America is relatively lucky that only 700,000 people died during the short civil war we endured. It could have gone on much longer and resulted in even more death.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Preventing peaceful secession is like being in a relationship and not letting your other-half leave if he/she wants out. Why on Earth would you want to be so intimately involved with someone who does not want to be with you? How is that a worthwhile situation? America is relatively lucky that only 700,000 people died during the short civil war we endured. It could have gone on much longer and resulted in even more death.

Exactly. This whole, "oh, you're just mad because you lost an election" line is idiotic. Why the hell do I have to have a reason that is acceptable to you if I want out of a relationship?

(Answer: because I WANT AND NEED YOUR STUFF, so sit down, shut up, and LIKE it.)

ETA - I'm not mad about the election. My philosophy hasn't won an election since... ever.

 

[FindLiberty]

Agree on Lincoln's motives, but what about the Confederacy's motives? That war involved 2 parties.

War motives? In my mind, the North initiated the use of force with the South.

The Southern states wanted to freely trade with industrialized England (supply cotton for their established industrial machinery). Lincoln probably was worried about the South getting too cozy with England so soon after the previous war of independence! He also needed to help (return favor to) his industrial buddies, railroad and banker friends in the North (He wanted to collect tax/tariff/regulate the South so that it could not freely choose overseas competition when selling their raw materials, cotton in particular.)

The shallow draft steamboat design suddenly allowed full use of the Mississippi River and allowed the South to float away from railroad dependence and also sail off to find new raw cotton customers other than just the newly industrializing North.

The South tried to part ways peacefully over these issues, but the North (federal) was obsessed with control, regulation, tax, tariff, and free trade interference.

The line in the sand was crossed when the South said, “We won’t be forced to support you and we don’t need you, so F’off already!”

That kind of secession talk really sets tyrants off, like poking a bee hive with a stick. To Lincoln and his buddies, the South looked like a whole bunch of escaping slaves the needed to be re-captured, contained and taught a lesson!

How soon we forget.

Today, I see no reason to doubt this kind of treason won’t eventually give the ‘ole tree of liberty a good waterin' again.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

War motives? In my mind, the North initiated the use of force with the South.

The Southern states wanted to freely trade with industrialized England (supply cotton for their established industrial machinery). Lincoln probably was worried about the South getting too cozy with England so soon after the previous war of independence! He also needed to help (return favor to) his industrial buddies, railroad and banker friends in the North (He wanted to collect tax/tariff/regulate the South so that it could not freely choose overseas competition when selling their raw materials, cotton in particular.)

The shallow draft steamboat design suddenly allowed full use of the Mississippi River and allowed the South to float away from railroad dependence and also sail off to find new raw cotton customers other than just the newly industrializing North.

The South tried to part ways peacefully over these issues, but the North (federal) was obsessed with control, regulation, tax, tariff, and free trade interference.

The line in the sand was crossed when the South said, “We won’t be forced to support you and we don’t need you, so F’off already!”

That kind of secession talk really sets tyrants off, like poking a bee hive with a stick. To Lincoln and his buddies, the South looked like a whole bunch of escaping slaves the needed to be re-captured, contained and taught a lesson!

How soon we forget.

Today, I see no reason to doubt this kind of treason won’t eventually give the ‘ole tree of liberty a good waterin' again.

So, superimpose a moral issue over an economic cause and, voila, claim the moral high-ground to invade, destroy, and kill?

Sounds about right. I wonder how it will play out this time...

 

[robert68]

Their motives for what? They simply wanted to leave the Union in peace. Lincoln wouldn't let them.

In the Declaration of Causes of 4 of the first 7 states to secede, failure of protection of the institution of slavery was the predominate grievance. South Carolina, the state for Ft. Sumter, was one of those 4 states. Also, the Confederacy didn’t permit free states.

 

[robert68]

Preventing peaceful secession is like being in a relationship and not letting your other-half leave if he/she wants out. Why on Earth would you want to be so intimately involved with someone who does not want to be with you? How is that a worthwhile situation? America is relatively lucky that only 700,000 people died during the short civil war we endured. It could have gone on much longer and resulted in even more death.

States aren’t individuals. There was never universal agreement within the states that seceded to secede, far from it. And among other property right aggressions, the Confederate Army, like the Union Army, fought the war with conscripts and inflated currency.

Also, in the American Revolution, a third of the population of the 13 colonies supported secession with Britain, a third opposed, and a third were indifferent. And that war was waged with military conscripts, currency inflation, higher taxes, and price controls, at the federal and state levels.

 

[Occam's Banana]

In the Declaration of Causes of 4 of the first 7 states to secede, failure of protection of the institution of slavery was the predominate grievance. South Carolina, the state for Ft. Sumter, was one of those 4 states. Also, the Confederacy didn’t permit free states.

So what? None of that gives them any motive for wanting to go to war against the north.

 

[robert68]

So what? None of that gives them any motive for wanting to go to war against the north.

To be free to better protect the rights of the "slaveholder" is certainly a motive.

 

[Cody1]

I don't have the energy to go through this guy's statement and refute it.... he is exceptionally uneducated (or just a propogandist).

My first thought was, why does this person hate liberty so much?

 

[Occam's Banana]

To be free to better protect the rights of the "slaveholder" is certainly a motive.

The fact that the south desired to defend itself against northern aggression cannot reasonably be construed as meaning that they wanted to go to war against the north.

The south did NOT have any motive for engaging in an aggressive, invasive war against the north. They did NOT want war.

Lincoln & his bunch DID have motives for engaging in an aggressive, invasive war against the south. They DID want war.

 

[robert68]

The fact that the south desired to defend itself against northern aggression cannot reasonably be construed as meaning that they wanted to go to war against the north.

The south did NOT have any motive for engaging in an aggressive, invasive war against the north. They did NOT want war.

Lincoln & his bunch DID have motives for engaging in an aggressive, invasive war against the south. They DID want war.

Both the Confederacy and Union were aggressors against individual property rights in my book. And fighting a losing battle as the Confederacy did only made matters far worse for most Southerners than they otherwise would have been.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Both the Confederacy and Union were aggressors against individual property rights in my book.

They were. Absolutely. I agree. But that has nothing at all to do with my point.

And fighting a losing battle as the Confederacy did only made matters far worse for most Southerners than they otherwise would have been.

However true this may be, it's got nothing to do with anything I've said in this thread.

 

[Danan]

If secession is a fundamental right that some Texans can petition the White House for secession, then why not honor Atlanta’s petition to secede from the state of Georgia? And if your state can secede at will, then why can’t your county, your town, or even your street declare independence? Where does it stop?

The only thing this tool got right in his diatribe was his conclusion regarding micro-secession. If you can't force Texas to be in the union, you can't force a city to be in a state, or an individual and his property to be under jurisdiction of a local government, if he secedes.

Is there a fundamental right to secede? Sure there is, in the same way that robbing your neighbor’s house can be justified as a fundamental right if you are starving.

I can't even imagine how deranged one's mind has to be, in order to come to that conclusion. "You have a right to peacefully end a relationship that starts to be to your detriment. Thus, it follows that you can robb other people." - What?!

 

[robert68]

The fact that the south desired to defend itself against northern aggression cannot reasonably be construed as meaning that they wanted to go to war against the north.

The south did NOT have any motive for engaging in an aggressive, invasive war against the north. They did NOT want war.

Lincoln & his bunch DID have motives for engaging in an aggressive, invasive war against the south. They DID want war.

----

Mobilization
As the first seven states began organizing a Confederacy in Montgomery, the Confederate Congress authorized the new nation up to 100,000 troops sent by governors as early as February. The entire US army numbered 16,000, however Northern governors had begun to mobilize their militias in response to southern state militias at Lincoln's election.[121] After Fort Sumter, Lincoln called out 75,000 three-month volunteers for Federal service, then by May, Jefferson Davis was pushing for 100,000 men under arms for one year or the duration, and that was answered in kind by the U.S. Congress.[122]

The Lincoln led US army that warred with the Confederacy didn’t exist before the Confederacy's authorization of 100,000 troops, the taking possession of federal properties in states like South Carolina, and the Confederate army’s attack on Ft. Sumter.

Originally Posted by robert68

Both the Confederacy and Union were aggressors against individual property rights in my book.

They were. Absolutely. I agree...

If you mean that, then you should have a big problem with the authorization of 100,000 troops for the Confederacy, when before that there had been only 16,000 troops for the entire US.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The Lincoln led US army that warred with the Confederacy didn’t exist before the Confederacy's authorization of 100,000 troops, the taking possession of federal properties in states like South Carolina, and the Confederate army’s attack on Ft. Sumter.

If you mean that, then you should have a big problem with the authorization of 100,000 troops for the Confederacy, when before that there had been only 16,000 troops for the entire US.

Why the hell are you badgering me about this? I repeat - NONE OF THIS has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with ANYTHING I have said.

So the south made preparations to defend itself against the north. SO WHAT?

So the south was nowhere even close to being a libertarian utopia. SO WHAT?

NONE OF THAT has ANYTHING to do with the fact that the south WOULD NOT have gone to war against the north IF THE NORTH HAD ALLOWED THEM TO SECEDE.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

NONE OF THAT has ANYTHING to do with the fact that the south WOULD NOT have gone to war against the north IF THE NORTH HAD ALLOWED THEM TO SECEDE.

Yeah, we're making an anti-war argument here and not a pro-south one. The institution of slavery was barbaric, but it doesn't justify a war that killed hundreds of thousands considering the slaves could have been freed peacefully like they were in every other country.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

Mike Peck Advertising Director at Forbes Magazine
United States Publishing

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mike-peck/7/454/b

 

[robert68]

Why the hell are you badgering me about this? I repeat - NONE OF THIS has ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with ANYTHING I have said.

So the south made preparations to defend itself against the north. SO WHAT?

So the south was nowhere even close to being a libertarian utopia. SO WHAT?



NONE OF THAT has ANYTHING to do with the fact that the south WOULD NOT have gone to war against the north IF THE NORTH HAD ALLOWED THEM TO SECEDE.

Below are your words that I first replied to:

Slavery was a serious issue, but it is not why the Civil War was fought...

I stated that for the Confederacy it was a significant issue; that's my read of history. You never showed it's otherwise.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Below are your words that I first replied to:

Slavery was a serious issue, but it is not why the Civil War was fought...

I stated that for the Confederacy it was a significant issue; that's my read of history. You never showed it's otherwise.

*sigh*

I have repeatedly stated (and do so again now for the umpteenth time) that the Civil War was fought because the North refused to allow the South to secede and go its own way.

The South's *motives* for secession are irrelevant to this point.

That the South seceded in order to avoid onerous tarriffs or preserve the institution of slavery - or so that they could worship the Devil & eat Christian babies - has nothing to do with it.

So I repeat: Slavery was a serious issue, but it is not why the Civil War was fought.

Slavery is one of the reasons the South seceded. The South fought the war because the North refused to permit the South to secede peaceably. The South had no motive for fighting the North except for this fact.

If the North had allowed the South to go its own way, the Civil War would NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. I really don't see what's so difficult to understand about this.