MUH TARIFFS

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

And, just to reiterate: I'm NOT defending 1850's/60's Southern society.

How is stating you would fight for the Confederacy not a defense of 1850s/60s Southern society?

[Deus Naturae]

The Confederate States seceded in order to preserve slavery. This is an established historical fact. Now everyone shut the f**k up.

What do you mean by preserve? Southern slavery was never threatened by Lincoln...he wanted to constitutionally protect its existence (see: Corwin Amendment) and supported the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Yes, there were wealthy Southern slaveholders who supported secession because their slave plantations would be more profitable in a tariff-free environment. They also wanted to expand slavery into new territories. Those who sat in Southern legislatures were primarily wealthy slaveholders, so this is reflected in the resolutions that Bore linked to several pages ago. On the other hand, the non-slaveholding Southern majority also had good reason to support secession - a >50% increase in the average tariff rate would have caused the price of vital goods manufactured in the industrial North to skyrocket. Non-slaveholding working Southerners would've been devastated (the system of slavery already retarded industrial development and economic growth, so the tariff hikes would've impoverished non-slaveholders even more). Furthermore, the Upper South States didn't even secede in response to Lincoln's election, but only once he announced his invasion of the Lower South. So, slavery preservation was in no sense the cause of secession. There were wealthy slaveholders who wanted to make their plantations more profitable and possibly expand slavery Southward into Mexico and the Caribbean, there were non-slaveholders who were opposed to the tariff increases, and there were residents of the Upper South who simply wanted to defend against all-out invasion. Not everyone who supported secession was automatically evil or primarily concerned with slavery. Given that none of the people who responded to the Pew survey owned slaves, it seems likely likely that they would support secession for one of the other two reasons. Well, actually, the survey asked about a hypothetical civil war in the future, so this whole discussion has been somewhat pointless. Regardless, supporting Southern secession does not necessarily make one a defender of slavery, as there were multiple reasons for that secession.

Getting back to the original argument which seems to be ignored every time I try to clarify it: How is someone a defender of slavery for saying that they would defend their home against an invading army that is invading with the stated intent of NOT abolishing slavery?

[Deus Naturae]

And, just to reiterate: I'm NOT defending 1850's/60's Southern society.

How is stating you would fight for the Confederacy not a defense of 1850s/60s Southern society?

First of all, when did I say that I would? That would probably depend on where I lived. If I actually lived in the South at the time, I'd likely would as a matter of self-defense, but otherwise I don't think I'd leave my home to join the Confederates.

Secondly, one need not be a defender of every or even most aspects of the society one lives in to want to defend one's home against an invader who is invading with the stated purpose of NOT changing those aspects but rather the imposition of taxes designed to enrich special interests.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

snip
Getting back to the original argument which seems to be ignored every time I try to clarify it: How is someone a defender of slavery for saying that they would defend their home against an invading army that is invading with the stated intent of NOT abolishing slavery?

Because tons of people in the real life South didn't? Quite a few people in places like West Virginia, East Tennessee, North Alabama, and the Texas hill country amoung other places supported the union. The truth is that the Confederates were just as likely in events like the Hill Country massacre to abuse their own White citizens as the north was. There was hardly any reason beyond supporting slavery to support the Slave states.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

And, just to reiterate: I'm NOT defending 1850's/60's Southern society.

How is stating you would fight for the Confederacy not a defense of 1850s/60s Southern society?

First of all, when did I say that I would? That would probably depend on where I lived. If I actually lived in the South at the time, I'd likely would as a matter of self-defense, but otherwise I don't think I'd leave my home to join the Confederates.

Secondly, one need not be a defender of every or even most aspects of the society one lives in to want to defend one's home against an invader who is invading with the stated purpose of NOT changing those aspects but rather the imposition of taxes designed to enrich special interests.

First of all, you seem to prioritize defending your "country" over defending basic moral principles, because any support of the Confederacy is tantamount to support for slavery as every sane person has previously stated in this thread.

Secondly, I think one must be a defender of the certain aspect of society upon which the very existence of that "home" is based to defend it with a clean conscience. Do you deny that the Southern secession was because of slavery, that the Confederacy was built on slavery, that the purpose of the Confederacy's existence was the preservation of slavery against all threats real or imagined?

[Deus Naturae]

First of all, you seem to prioritize defending your "country" over defending basic moral principles, because any support of the Confederacy is tantamount to support for slavery as every sane person has previously stated in this thread.

Secondly, I think one must be a defender of the certain aspect of society upon which the very existence of that "home" is based to defend it with a clean conscience. Do you deny that the Southern secession was because of slavery, that the Confederacy was built on slavery, that the purpose of the Confederacy's existence was the preservation of slavery against all threats real or imagined?

If the invader is not going to alter that aspect of society, I fail to see how it is at all relevant to the morality of attempting to defend against that invader. As I've attempted to explain several times, it makes no sense to say that siding with the invading Union forces over the Confederates is somehow taking a moral high ground against slavery, when the invading forces in question had the stated intent of not abolishing slavery.

As for the motivations behind secession, I've also addressed that previously in this thread, but I may as well do so again. The Upper South didn't even secede in response to Lincoln's election, and only did so once the invasion had been announced. So, it's clear that at the very least, the Upper South only seceded for reasons of self-defense/refusal to take up arms against the Lower South. The Lower South seceded for several reasons, and I agree that it would be ridiculous to discount slavery. Wealthy slaveholders, a) wanted to protect the profitability of their plantations, and b) had hopes of expanding slavery to new territories (though it's interesting to note that by seceding, they were essentially forfeiting their ability to extend slavery into Western territories under US control). In addition, the non-slaveholding majority also had an interest in supporting secession, namely the fact that the Morrill Tariff would have dramatically increased prices for vital goods. Generally, there was a feeling that the Republican Party was totally hostile to the South. Southerners (both directly and indirectly) payed the vast majority of the tariff burden, so the Republican platform of using tariff revenue to subsidize Northern corporations and finance infrastructure projects that would've disproportionately benefitted Northern commerce was abhorrent to all Southerners, regardless of whether they owned slaves. The reasons for secession were complex, which is why I object to the notion that every single person who fought for the Confederacy did so for the sole purpose of defending slavery (which, as I've noted many times previously, was not under attack by Lincoln or the invading Union forces).

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

First of all, you seem to prioritize defending your "country" over defending basic moral principles, because any support of the Confederacy is tantamount to support for slavery as every sane person has previously stated in this thread.

Secondly, I think one must be a defender of the certain aspect of society upon which the very existence of that "home" is based to defend it with a clean conscience. Do you deny that the Southern secession was because of slavery, that the Confederacy was built on slavery, that the purpose of the Confederacy's existence was the preservation of slavery against all threats real or imagined?

The reasons for secession were complex, which is why I object to the notion that every single person who fought for the Confederacy did so for the sole purpose of defending slavery (which, as I've noted many times previously, was not under attack by Lincoln or the invading Union forces).

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." - Alexander Stephens

Is that very complex to you? Furthermore, it doesn't matter what purpose Robert E. Lee thought he had, he was fighting to preserve the existence of a nation based on slavery. If he really opposed slavery he wouldn't have betrayed his country for his state.

To illustrate, let's take Jim. Let's say Jim's a good god-fearing man from Jackson, Mississippi who's too poor to own slaves but fights for the Confederacy because he feels he's being "invaded". Let's just say that the presence of Jim in the Confederate army causes the South to win at Antietam or Gettysburg or whatever crucial battle you want and therefore win the war. If the South wins the war, slavery is extended for an indeterminate period of time instead of being repealed outright in 1865. Do you agree with me that Jim's actions directly caused the extension of slavery? Do you then continue on with me to the inevitable conclusion that Jim's actions were tantamount to supporting slavery whether?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Confederate States seceded in order to preserve slavery. This is an established historical fact. Now everyone shut the f**k up.

What do you mean by preserve? Southern slavery was never threatened by Lincoln.. blabber blabber blabber

Southerners had become increasingly paranoid over the previous 3 decades, and the more things went on the more they thought everybody was out to get their slaves. It doesn't matter the slightest what Lincoln was actually going to do of his Presidency - for them, the mere notion of having a Republican in the White House was enough of a menace to their precious "institution".

[beaver2.0]

The ever changing nature of the title of this thread is quite annoying.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Closing this thread because it's long evident that the discussion has deviated from its intended purpose and is now basically a cyclical rehash of old arguments that lead to nowhere.

If at this point Deus and the like still don't understand the nature of the Civil War or its causes, I suggest they get their collective asses down to the local library and pick up a history book not published by the Mises Institute.

Thank you, and remember: sometimes silence speaks better than words can.