Why do Neocons hate LewRockwell.com?

[Slutter McGee]

I really don't have too much of opinion on this subject but I do find the absolute hatred for Lincoln completely silly. I am going to take a look into what Trav is saying, if only because he is the only person not coming off as a self-righteous know it all jackass. Dude is trying to debate honestly, and the rest of you assholes are throwing out logical fallacies. The judge said it...do you disagree...as if that is a horrible thing. Who the fuck says there can't be disagreement among people who support liberty?

I disagree with 99% of the people here. I support the death penalty (at the state level.) I am pro-choice. I vote Republican even if I don't always like them. I am a Federalist with a paleo-conservative bend (minus hard headed protectionism.) I think 911 was not an inside job and I think I am smarter than all of you.

Yet, you insist on calling this guy a troll because he disagrees. Why don't you just fucking debate. The election is over, have some fun with some fucking good arguments instead of throwing out nothing but logical fallacies.

That being said, let us look at this from a common sense perspective instead of a historical one. Insulting Lincoln is fucking stupid (out side of a polite debate) and lends no credibility to us (right or wrong). Lincoln's actions freed millions of human beings being held in bondage which is wonderful. Lincoln's actions also set the stage for Federal overreach in power, partially contributing the situation today.

Yet you assholes (on both sides) see everything in black and white. Honestly, Don't take that as a pun. If it was, it would be much more clever.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[TheTexan]

Dude is trying to debate honestly

Slutter McGee has jokes!

No, in all seriousness, you're either new or returning from a long break. If we don't seem to be taking Travlyr's arguments seriously, it's specifically because we know he's a dishonest debater, and know it's a waste of time.

I'm out of this thread though, so please, continue the "debate"

 

[Slutter McGee]

Slutter McGee has jokes!

No, in all seriousness, you're either new or returning from a long break. If we don't seem to be taking Travlyr's arguments seriously, it's specifically because we know he's a dishonest debater, and know it's a waste of time.

I'm out of this thread though, so please, continue the "debate"

Oh yeah, I am brand spanking fucking new. By dishonest, you mean he replies to challenges of his ideas (right or wrong) while the rest of you spew vile and try to demean him? I don't have a fucking clue who he is. I don't fucking care. I can tell you that if any honest person who knew little about libertarianism read this thread, he would think you are all goddamn nuts.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[Travlyr]

I really don't have too much of opinion on this subject but I do find the absolute hatred for Lincoln completely silly. I am going to take a look into what Trav is saying, if only because he is the only person not coming off as a self-righteous know it all jackass. Dude is trying to debate honestly, and the rest of you assholes are throwing out logical fallacies. The judge said it...do you disagree...as if that is a horrible thing. Who the fuck says there can't be disagreement among people who support liberty?

I disagree with 99% of the people here. I support the death penalty (at the state level.) I am pro-choice. I vote Republican even if I don't always like them. I am a Federalist with a paleo-conservative bend (minus hard headed protectionism.) I think 911 was not an inside job and I think I am smarter than all of you.

Yet, you insist on calling this guy a troll because he disagrees. Why don't you just fucking debate. The election is over, have some fun with some fucking good arguments instead of throwing out nothing but logical fallacies.

That being said, let us look at this from a common sense perspective instead of a historical one. Insulting Lincoln is fucking stupid (out side of a polite debate) and lends no credibility to us (right or wrong). Lincoln's actions freed millions of human beings being held in bondage which is wonderful. Lincoln's actions also set the stage for Federal overreach in power, partially contributing the situation today.

Yet you assholes (on both sides) see everything in black and white. Honestly, Don't take that as a pun. If it was, it would be much more clever.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

+ rep

Thanks Slutter McGee!

 

[Ender]

-- Reflections --

Lincoln Provoked the War

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Southern leaders of the Civil War period placed the blame for the outbreak of fighting squarely on Lincoln. They accused the President of acting aggressively towards the South and of deliberately provoking war in order to overthrow the Confederacy. For its part, the Confederacy sought a peaceable accommodation of its legitimate claims to independence, and resorted to measures of self-defence only when threatened by Lincoln's coercive policy. Thus, Confederate vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, claimed that the war was "inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln." Stephens readily acknowledged that General Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary."

Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln's order sending a "hostile fleet, styled the 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. "The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time-- one in front, and the other in the rear." The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in "self-defence," rendered necessary by the actions of the other side.

Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great "forbearance" in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors," Davis argued, "is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun."

From Davis's point of view, to permit the strengthening of Sumter, even if done in a peaceable manner, was unacceptable. It meant the continued presence of a hostile threat to Charleston. Further, although the ostensible purpose of the expedition was to resupply, not reinforce the fort, the Confederacy had no guarantee that Lincoln would abide by his word. And even if he restricted his actions to resupply in this case, what was to prevent him from attempting to reinforce the fort in the future? Thus, the attack on Sumter was a measure of "defense." To have acquiesced in the fort's relief, even at the risk of firing the first shot, "would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired."

In the twentieth century, this critical view of Lincoln's actions gained a wide audience through the writings of Charles W. Ramsdell and others. According to Ramsdell, the situation at Sumter presented Lincoln with a series of dilemmas. If he took action to maintain the fort, he would lose the border South and a large segment of northern opinion which wanted to conciliate the South. If he abandoned the fort, he jeopardized the Union by legitimizing the Confederacy. Lincoln also hazarded losing the support of a substantial portion of his own Republican Party, and risked appearing a weak and ineffective leader.

Lincoln could escape these predicaments, however, if he could induce southerners to attack Sumter, "to assume the aggressive and thus put themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and of the world." By sending a relief expedition, ostensibly to provide bread to a hungry garrison, Lincoln turned the tables on the Confederates, forcing them to choose whether to permit the fort to be strengthened, or to act as the aggressor. By this "astute strategy," Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot.

Bibliography: Stephens, Constitutional View, 2: 35-41; Davis, Rise and Fall, 1: 289-95; Ramsdell, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter,"pp. 259-88.

http://www.tulane.edu/~sumter/Reflections/LinWar.html

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Slutter McGee has jokes!

No, in all seriousness, you're either new or returning from a long break. If we don't seem to be taking Travlyr's arguments seriously, it's specifically because we know he's a dishonest debater, and know it's a waste of time.

I'm out of this thread though, so please, continue the "debate"

This^^

 

[Travlyr]

Slutter McGee has jokes!

No, in all seriousness, you're either new or returning from a long break. If we don't seem to be taking Travlyr's arguments seriously, it's specifically because we know he's a dishonest debater, and know it's a waste of time.

I'm out of this thread though, so please, continue the "debate"

Yeah. Go to your corner or take your ball and go home because you get you information, not from the source documents, but from TV. Gotta love the TV for truth.

 

[Travlyr]

This^^

Do you ever read anything? Anything at all? Your cheerleading is unbecoming of a man.

 

[Ender]

Frank Meyer, in the August, 1965, issue of National Review, wrote an article that in part stated,

“Lincoln’s pivotal role in our history was essentially negative to the genius and freedom of our country.”

“Lincoln…moved at every point …to consolidate central power and render nugatory (of little importance) the autonomy of the states…It is on his shoulders that the responsibility for the war must be placed.”

“If the premise upon which the US broke from England is legitimate then the ENTIRE PREMISE upon which Lincoln prosecuted the war against the Confederacy was ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL.”

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Frank Meyer, in the August, 1965, issue of National Review, wrote an article that in part stated,

“Lincoln’s pivotal role in our history was essentially negative to the genius and freedom of our country.”

“Lincoln…moved at every point …to consolidate central power and render nugatory (of little importance) the autonomy of the states…It is on his shoulders that the responsibility for the war must be placed.”

“If the premise upon which the US broke from England is legitimate then the ENTIRE PREMISE upon which Lincoln prosecuted the war against the Confederacy was ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL.”

+rep

 

[Ender]

Lincoln claimed in his First Inaugural Address “No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union.”

Closely examining the Articles of Confederation, Article II states,

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

By the standard definition, delegated means to pass down a chain-of-command to a subordinate agent by a superior authority – in this case, the individual state is passing authority to the Federal government. To reinforce this argument, The Declaration of Independence, in part, states quite clearly,

“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States… and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

“Power to levy War?” “Contract Alliances? These words sound very much like the authority any nation would grant itself.

The framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution very specifically designed the new government on the basis of a union of strong and independent states with a minimal Federal government solely responsible for defense and the judiciary, to avoid the pitfalls of powerful central governments such as England. In fact, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution specifically states:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Common defence and general Welfare meant that their intention was simply to maintain a Federal army and the development of a nationwide judicial system. That was the main purpose of the Federal government. According to various legal interpretations, Lincoln had no more claim to bind Georgia or Alabama than it had in binding China or France to the Union. Lincoln and his supporters chose to believe that the states had surrendered their status as sovereign nations as justification to wage war against the south. Lincoln’s actions clearly violated the tenth amendment to the Constitution that states,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

By almost all legal interpretations, the Constitution is fundamentally a treaty between separate and sovereign nation-states, which those states agreed to support, as opposed to being bound to obey by law. This is a very important point that illustrates the rape of the Constitution commencing with the administration of Lincoln.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and people were seized and confined on the possible suspicion of disloyalty. At least 13,000 civilians were held as political prisoners, often without trial or with minimal hearings before a military tribunal. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, but was overruled by Lincoln.

Once Lincoln and his supporters had made the decision that states had surrendered their sovereignty, the Civil War caused a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the Federal government. A progressive income tax was imposed on the people to pay for the war, the start of the extortion that we live with today.

 

[Travlyr]

Lincoln claimed in his First Inaugural Address “No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union.”

Closely examining the Articles of Confederation, Article II states,

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

By the standard definition, delegated means to pass down a chain-of-command to a subordinate agent by a superior authority – in this case, the individual state is passing authority to the Federal government. To reinforce this argument, The Declaration of Independence, in part, states quite clearly,

“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States… and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

“Power to levy War?” “Contract Alliances? These words sound very much like the authority any nation would grant itself.

The framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution very specifically designed the new government on the basis of a union of strong and independent states with a minimal Federal government solely responsible for defense and the judiciary, to avoid the pitfalls of powerful central governments such as England. In fact, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution specifically states:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Common defence and general Welfare meant that their intention was simply to maintain a Federal army and the development of a nationwide judicial system. That was the main purpose of the Federal government. According to various legal interpretations, Lincoln had no more claim to bind Georgia or Alabama than it had in binding China or France to the Union. Lincoln and his supporters chose to believe that the states had surrendered their status as sovereign nations as justification to wage war against the south. Lincoln’s actions clearly violated the tenth amendment to the Constitution that states,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

By almost all legal interpretations, the Constitution is fundamentally a treaty between separate and sovereign nation-states, which those states agreed to support, as opposed to being bound to obey by law. This is a very important point that illustrates the rape of the Constitution commencing with the administration of Lincoln.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and people were seized and confined on the possible suspicion of disloyalty. At least 13,000 civilians were held as political prisoners, often without trial or with minimal hearings before a military tribunal. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, but was overruled by Lincoln.

Once Lincoln and his supporters had made the decision that states had surrendered their sovereignty, the Civil War caused a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the Federal government. A progressive income tax was imposed on the people to pay for the war, the start of the extortion that we live with today.

But the question is: Can you answer my earlier questions?

 

[Travlyr]

+rep

Rah Rah Rah... Shish Boom Bah!

 

[Slutter McGee]

Frank Meyer, in the August, 1965, issue of National Review, wrote an article that in part stated,

“Lincoln’s pivotal role in our history was essentially negative to the genius and freedom of our country.”

“Lincoln…moved at every point …to consolidate central power and render nugatory (of little importance) the autonomy of the states…It is on his shoulders that the responsibility for the war must be placed.”

“If the premise upon which the US broke from England is legitimate then the ENTIRE PREMISE upon which Lincoln prosecuted the war against the Confederacy was ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL.”

He also gave freedom to millions of black slaves. This is not bad. The end results, and the precedent it set maybe. The civil war is an ethical quandary. Lincoln was on the morally and philosophically correct side, and the Confederacy was on the legally and also philosophically correct side. It is unfortunate that this moral action (which won) also determined legal precedent.

Slutter McGee

 

[Travlyr]

That's quite the harsh rebuke... hadn't seen that before +rep

"hey man, I asked for info on what you didn't like about what napolitano said, all you had to say was "can you read?" ... give me something of substance and I'll address your points"

You want substance? Why is Lincoln responsible for these deaths? POW camp Sumter, Andersonville?

 

[Travlyr]

+rep

Rah Rah Shish Boom Bah. What size skirt do you wear HB? I'll get you a new one for Christmas.

 

[Travlyr]

Rah Rah Shish Boom Bah. What size skirt do you wear HB? I'll get you a new one for Christmas.

Do you like plaid or plain? If you would like provide the forum with substance of argument in the discussion, then please do respond with an intelligent response. If you would like to be a cheerleader + repping all my opponents, then let us know what size skirt you like to wear. I will get you a new one. Plain or Plaid? What size?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

He also gave freedom to millions of black slaves. This is not bad. The end results, and the precedent it set maybe. The civil war is an ethical quandary. Lincoln was on the morally and philosophically correct side, and the Confederacy was on the legally and also philosophically correct side. It is unfortunate that this moral action (which won) also determined legal precedent.

Slutter McGee

Sort of. He expanded the plantation so that everyone could be equally enslaved (what's now called "free-range slavery")-only to the regime instead of private slavers. Not a great tradeoff, IMO. I would prefer RP's solution of buying the slaves and emancipating them (although Lincoln's own voiced opinion on the subject tell me ending the practice was at best a secondary goal)

 

[JK/SEA]

//

 

[acptulsa]

Sort of. He expanded the plantation so that everyone could be equally enslaved-only to the regime instead of private slavers. Not a great tradeoff, IMO.

And what of the period of nearly half a century between 1865 and 1913? Yes, Lincoln 'set precedents', but no, Lincoln did not set precedents. What Lincoln did he did during wartime. It took Constitutional amendments to enable Wilson to get away with it during peace time.

Lincoln was in an unenviable situation. He was sworn in as president of a nation with 33 states, and he wanted to leave office with 33 states (at least) in the Union. It's understandable. Was that goal worth the lives lost? Many believe so. Many don't.

Slavery was reprehensible. In the Age of Enlightenment, it had to go. The issue was coming to a head. Lincoln wouldn't have won the election if it weren't.

Why do neocons hate that site? It makes people think? It exposes neocons as something other than conservative? It has no respect for conventionality, which is something conservatives are known to value? It displays all the sensitivity and tact of a badger? I don't know. But I do know this: If I had a time machine and the ability to torpedo a historical political career in it's infancy, my target would be Wilson, not Lincoln.