Confederate Flag: Pride or Bigotry?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

That makes no sense-

The South could have kept slavery easily in the form of an amendment that would have prevented the federal government from abolishing it without their consent.

Also, by leaving the union they gave up any chance of influencing territories that wanted to join the union.

If what you claimed was correct the south would have had to stay in the union in order to have further influence in the unions decision making process.

It simply does not compute.

The South wasn’t interested in “keeping” slavery, they wanted expansion. The amendment kept slavery where it was - legislation was forthcoming to keep it our of the Federal Territories. That is what the election of 1860 was about. The Slave Power split the Democratic Convention because the national party would not commit to anything more than “popular sovereignty” in the new Federal Territories in opposition to the Republicans’ plank of “no expansion of slavery”.

And, they knew that they couldn’t “influence territories” because the election result gave them information to the contrary - that the Republicans’ plan was going to win the day. That is precisely why the Slave Power wanted out - if they stayed in the Union, the legislative math meant that they were losers.

The Slave Power couldn’t influence the “Union’s decision making process” - they already tried and failed.

And, the Confederacy was already licking its chops at the possibilities of westward expansion - the Confederacy was thinking empire, and weren’t about to let anything stand in their way.

Everything computes just fine, if you have any facts at your disposal. You are like a slow-motion trainwreck. Bow out while you still can.[/quote]

This guy has clearly never actually read anything on the issue. Orion, if you picked up a book, or better yet primary sources from the era, it would compute.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

This is wrong and significantly oversimplies things. Slavery certainly was an issue. But the North did NOT decide to fight the civil war as a moral imperative to liberate the slaves. The civil war was fought over a funadmental schism in North/South and their values. It was about the future of the Union and its make up. It was about States Rights and the Union as a whole. It was about whose vision of America would prevail in the Western states. Slavery was a big issue but only one issue, and it sparked the kind of moral outrage that it does today in few Northerners.

You’re full of shit.

Without slavery, there would have been no Civil War. Anyone who says any differently is absolutely lying to themselves.

That state’s rights bullshit is what southerners who don’t want to own up to the past claim. Nothing more. [/quote]

Of course, I did not actually say that at all. But as people have pointed out in the pages since then, the key issues was the North’s right to dictate slavery to the South and the South’s desires to expand slavery into the Western territories. Not some moral imperative from the North to liberate the slaves.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Of course, I did not actually say that at all. But as people have pointed out in the pages since then, the key issues was the North’s right to dictate slavery to the South and the South’s desires to expand slavery into the Western territories. Not some moral imperative from the North to liberate the slaves.[/quote]

And I never said that. I said that slavery was the biggest issue and caused the war.

I didn’t say ANYTHING about a moral imperative. Read before you speak amigo.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Of course, I did not actually say that at all. But as people have pointed out in the pages since then, the key issues was the North’s right to dictate slavery to the South and the South’s desires to expand slavery into the Western territories. Not some moral imperative from the North to liberate the slaves.

And I never said that. I said that slavery was the biggest issue and caused the war.

I didn’t say ANYTHING about a moral imperative. Read before you speak amigo.[/quote]

And we know how easy it is to grow cotton and tobacco in Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nevada.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Of course, I did not actually say that at all. But as people have pointed out in the pages since then, the key issues was the North’s right to dictate slavery to the South and the South’s desires to expand slavery into the Western territories. Not some moral imperative from the North to liberate the slaves.

And I never said that. I said that slavery was the biggest issue and caused the war.

I didn’t say ANYTHING about a moral imperative. Read before you speak amigo.[/quote]

Sorry bud. I guess I misinterpreted your point and what you were trying to get at.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Of course, I did not actually say that at all. But as people have pointed out in the pages since then, the key issues was the North’s right to dictate slavery to the South and the South’s desires to expand slavery into the Western territories. Not some moral imperative from the North to liberate the slaves.

And I never said that. I said that slavery was the biggest issue and caused the war.

I didn’t say ANYTHING about a moral imperative. Read before you speak amigo.[/quote]

Actually you made claims about the north better than the south.

I said;
"I’m also not stating that nothing good came from the war, just that the north wasnâ??t the rosy picture painted in the history books. "

You responded;
“As opposed to the fucking slaveholding antebellum south? The north was a fucking picnic compared to the society based on oppression.”

Or there is this one:

“I love when people complain that the Federal Government was “bullying” the South. These are the same people who owned and degraded an entire race of people simply because of the color of their skin.”

Or this:

“When you enslave a race of people and effectively demolish their identity as people while trading them as property, you’re right, you obviously aren’t capable of responsible self-government.”

Or:
“The word “hypocrites” only applies to one side in that war.”

That reeks of moral argument to me. Now you don’t think the north was standing on moral grounds? Interesting.

I even mentioned that even if you consider slavery the main issue, it was still a power struggle between the states and the fed.

I said:
“Even if you chalk up slavery as a key issue, the reasoning of lack of representation is the same.”

You said:
"WHAT FUCKING LACK OF REPRESENTATION?

Were there not Southerners in Congress dually elected by the people? Were there not debates on the issues? Were there not votes on said issues? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHERE WAS THE LACK OF OF REPRESENTATION?

Tell me when they banned Southerners from Congress, or didn’t let them hold elections to govern themselves. Tell me when."

Apparently to be unfairly represented you have to be banned from congress. It couldn’t have been about the north pushing around the south with the federal government, because they weren’t banned from congress.

Are you admitting now that it was more simply a power struggle between states and federal government, even on the issue of slavery?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Of course, I did not actually say that at all. But as people have pointed out in the pages since then, the key issues was the North’s right to dictate slavery to the South and the South’s desires to expand slavery into the Western territories. Not some moral imperative from the North to liberate the slaves.

And I never said that. I said that slavery was the biggest issue and caused the war.

I didn’t say ANYTHING about a moral imperative. Read before you speak amigo.

Actually you made claims about the north better than the south.

I said;
"I’m also not stating that nothing good came from the war, just that the north wasnÃ?¢??t the rosy picture painted in the history books. "

You responded;
“As opposed to the fucking slaveholding antebellum south? The north was a fucking picnic compared to the society based on oppression.”

Or there is this one:

“I love when people complain that the Federal Government was “bullying” the South. These are the same people who owned and degraded an entire race of people simply because of the color of their skin.”

Or this:

“When you enslave a race of people and effectively demolish their identity as people while trading them as property, you’re right, you obviously aren’t capable of responsible self-government.”

Or:
“The word “hypocrites” only applies to one side in that war.”

That reeks of moral argument to me. Now you don’t think the north was standing on moral grounds? Interesting.

I even mentioned that even if you consider slavery the main issue, it was still a power struggle between the states and the fed.

I said:
“Even if you chalk up slavery as a key issue, the reasoning of lack of representation is the same.”

You said:
"WHAT FUCKING LACK OF REPRESENTATION?

Were there not Southerners in Congress dually elected by the people? Were there not debates on the issues? Were there not votes on said issues? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHERE WAS THE LACK OF OF REPRESENTATION?

Tell me when they banned Southerners from Congress, or didn’t let them hold elections to govern themselves. Tell me when."

Apparently to be unfairly represented you have to be banned from congress. It couldn’t have been about the north pushing around the south with the federal government, because they weren’t banned from congress.

Are you admitting now that it was more simply a power struggle between states and federal government, even on the issue of slavery?

[/quote]

How was there a lack of representation? Is not getting your way a lack of representation now? I don’t mean to be snarky, I’m serious. What lack of representation was there?


My understanding of the situation is slavery was a factor, all factors revolved around slavery. It was definitely not the only reason for the conflict though. Both sides, major players in government wrote and spoke on that slavery would have to dissolve. So, if both sides figured that slavery would dissolve, why would Lincoln (a mild bigot at the time) declare the slaves free? Especially when power houses from Europe were planning on helping out the Confederate States of America in the war against the North.

I say it was propaganda, especially since Lincoln thought it was revolting for a free black man to walk around in the same town as him. It was not to invite them up North to live with him. As a matter a fact, Lincoln wrote in a letter that he wished and planned to send the black people back to Africa after the war.

I say the Rebel flag, just like all other symbols have been used for something sinister. The Swatiska, the American Flag, and the Star of David all have been seen in someone’s eyes as sinister. The Rebel flag is now a symbol of different things to different people. We still have the KKK who uses it, yet they still use the American flag. We have foreign rebels fighting against oppressive governments who use it. We also have rock & roll cultures that use it, and we have people who have lived in Dixie their whole life, and have had their Rebel flag all their life in their front yard. So, how is it fair for any of those (except the KKK) to be accused of being anymore racists than anyone else just because of their affiliation with the Rebel flag?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Of course, I did not actually say that at all. But as people have pointed out in the pages since then, the key issues was the North’s right to dictate slavery to the South and the South’s desires to expand slavery into the Western territories. Not some moral imperative from the North to liberate the slaves.

And I never said that. I said that slavery was the biggest issue and caused the war.

I didn’t say ANYTHING about a moral imperative. Read before you speak amigo.

Actually you made claims about the north better than the south.

I said;
"I’m also not stating that nothing good came from the war, just that the north wasnÃ?¢??t the rosy picture painted in the history books. "

You responded;
“As opposed to the fucking slaveholding antebellum south? The north was a fucking picnic compared to the society based on oppression.”

Or there is this one:

“I love when people complain that the Federal Government was “bullying” the South. These are the same people who owned and degraded an entire race of people simply because of the color of their skin.”

Or this:

“When you enslave a race of people and effectively demolish their identity as people while trading them as property, you’re right, you obviously aren’t capable of responsible self-government.”

Or:
“The word “hypocrites” only applies to one side in that war.”

That reeks of moral argument to me. Now you don’t think the north was standing on moral grounds? Interesting.
[/quote]

Yes dicksmack, but I was making the argument from hindsight. At no point did I say that the North ever began the war as a moral imperative to END slavery.

Had I been alive, I believe that I would have been all over a moral imperative- however, back then, it was not.

Lincoln is well known as having stated that if he could have preserved the union without freeing the slaves, he would have done that.

At the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, several entire regiments resigned because they didn’t want “to fight for Sambo.”

There was a strong and very loud contingent in the Northeast based in Boston and some parts of NY that was hugely against slavery in any form. So there certainly were people in the North that were fighting the war, or supporting it, on moral imperative. But the majority were not.

WHAT? WHAT FUCKING CRACK ARE YOU SMOKING THAT YOU REACHED THIS FUCKING CONCLUSION???

To lack representation, you have to NOT have a say in the matter. The South had PLENTY of say in the matter, as evidenced by the numerous compromises that kept the country from avoiding war over the issue earlier on.

On top of that, Lincoln did not even secretly ever say that he wanted to issue an executive order banning slavery- it would have had to go through Congress, in which case the South would have had their say. If they lost, they would have lost- and fairly and rightly so.

There is a process in government- it existed then and it exists now. It denies representation to NO state- everyone is clearly represented in two houses, one based on population and the other with their two senators. For you to say that the South in any way lacked any type of representation, and to have the balls to compare it the situation that existed before the revolution, proves to me that you are either mildly autistic or consistently drunk when you post about politics.

Everyone calm down, so we have a conclusion…

The South did not like to be told what to do, so they decided to secede. Which people would have rather it stayed the Union as a whole and not two parts, on both sides. The factor for the people in the South is that people followed their individual states more than at the Federal level. Lincoln decided that he was going to keep it one and decided to bring them back with force.

Outside forces were going to help, but because they objected to the institute of slavery and Lincoln knew this he declared the Emancipation Proclamation as propaganda to create backing. This pulled more support for the North before the South could receive its support. The South lost the War of Southern Independence, the name turned into the Civil War. England and Spain stayed home, and Lincoln declared reconstruction of the South.

This pissed the South of because not only did they lose, now they had someone rubbing it in their face by staying there and rebuilding it not how they wanted it. There were many tragedies, the slaves were free. It created share cropping which was not better, but probably the only way South could have stayed a live. The North did not treat the blacks any different and segregation happened to a fault.

The Rebel Flag still does not stand for racism or bigotry, at least not to most people. And I’d appreciate it if you called the flag are talking about by the right name, the flag I posted last time is considered the official Flag of the Confederate States of America

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Of course, I did not actually say that at all. But as people have pointed out in the pages since then, the key issues was the North’s right to dictate slavery to the South and the South’s desires to expand slavery into the Western territories. Not some moral imperative from the North to liberate the slaves.

And I never said that. I said that slavery was the biggest issue and caused the war.

I didn’t say ANYTHING about a moral imperative. Read before you speak amigo.

And we know how easy it is to grow cotton and tobacco in Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nevada.

[/quote]

I know, right. And cotton-picking and tobacco were certainly the SOLE areas in which their labor could have been utilized. There were definitely no other ways their owners could’ve exploited their labor to make money upon expanding into the Western states.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Of course, I did not actually say that at all. But as people have pointed out in the pages since then, the key issues was the North’s right to dictate slavery to the South and the South’s desires to expand slavery into the Western territories. Not some moral imperative from the North to liberate the slaves.

And I never said that. I said that slavery was the biggest issue and caused the war.

I didn’t say ANYTHING about a moral imperative. Read before you speak amigo.

And we know how easy it is to grow cotton and tobacco in Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nevada.

I know, right. And cotton-picking and tobacco were certainly the SOLE areas in which their labor could have been utilized. There were definitely no other ways their owners could’ve exploited their labor to make money upon expanding into the Western states.[/quote]

They did not have the chance. That’s what happened with the infamous Kansas, it was a blockade.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
WHAT? WHAT FUCKING CRACK ARE YOU SMOKING THAT YOU REACHED THIS FUCKING CONCLUSION???

To lack representation, you have to NOT have a say in the matter. The South had PLENTY of say in the matter, as evidenced by the numerous compromises that kept the country from avoiding war over the issue earlier on.

On top of that, Lincoln did not even secretly ever say that he wanted to issue an executive order banning slavery- it would have had to go through Congress, in which case the South would have had their say. If they lost, they would have lost- and fairly and rightly so.

There is a process in government- it existed then and it exists now. It denies representation to NO state- everyone is clearly represented in two houses, one based on population and the other with their two senators. For you to say that the South in any way lacked any type of representation, and to have the balls to compare it the situation that existed before the revolution, proves to me that you are either mildly autistic or consistently drunk when you post about politics.
[/quote]

Lets put it this way.

The divide between north and south ran much deeper than slavery. It began before emancipation was ever an issue.

Things like:
The assimilation of state dept from the revolutionary war (the south got screwed because they had already settled most of their debt)
The forming of a federal bank and selling of securities (once again the south was screwed because there werenâ??t southern institutions to sell securities in the south)
The flexibility of the constitution with this passage in the legislative powers:

â??To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.â??

The general exercise of tariffs (initially the only source of federal revenue) (something that was worse for the south who without industrialization had to buy more manufactured goods)
Followed by alcohol taxes (something that really damaging to rural areas)
Subsidized industrialization by the federal government (that spent federal money mostly in the north)

What do all these things all this things had in common? First, these issues were all pretty strictly divided geographically between north and south. Second, the south lost every one.

The fact is that in the development and establishment of the nation the southern states were constantly overruled by the northern ones. Washington DC was located where it is to try and help appease the southern states to avoid a breakup of the union (slavery was in NO WAY a prominent issue at this point).

And yes, if you want to add the equation of slavery to the end of that list it fits in perfectly. BUT you have to realize that the divide between north and south had been present since the nation started and encompassed many issues at the base of which was always federal authority vs state sovereignty.

(by the way those are just some of the issues I know of, if I did some research Iâ??m sure I could find more)

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Lets put it this way.

The divide between north and south ran much deeper than slavery. It began before emancipation was ever an issue.

[/quote]

Let’s put it this way:

The divide between north and south was primarily about slavery, but did have other issues. This was true before the constitution was even written.

Madison believed that slavery was the central cause of the most elemental division in the Constitutional Convetion: “the States were divided into different interests not by their difference of size,” Madison observed, “but principally from their having or not having slaves.”

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Lets put it this way.

The divide between north and south ran much deeper than slavery. It began before emancipation was ever an issue.

Let’s put it this way:

The divide between north and south was primarily about slavery, but did have other issues. This was true before the constitution was even written.

Madison believed that slavery was the central cause of the most elemental division in the Constitutional Convetion: “the States were divided into different interests not by their difference of size,” Madison observed, “but principally from their having or not having slaves.”[/quote]

And coincidentally how agricultural based they were. As I was mentioning, agriculturally based states were constantly getting screwed early on.

And yes, Madison, who was openly anti-slavery (and also owned and never freed slaves), was on the side of the southern states.

Ever think that having slaves or not was a reflection of the culture and economic base of that state. Causation versus correlation. You showed only correlation.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
WHAT? WHAT FUCKING CRACK ARE YOU SMOKING THAT YOU REACHED THIS FUCKING CONCLUSION???

To lack representation, you have to NOT have a say in the matter. The South had PLENTY of say in the matter, as evidenced by the numerous compromises that kept the country from avoiding war over the issue earlier on.

On top of that, Lincoln did not even secretly ever say that he wanted to issue an executive order banning slavery- it would have had to go through Congress, in which case the South would have had their say. If they lost, they would have lost- and fairly and rightly so.

There is a process in government- it existed then and it exists now. It denies representation to NO state- everyone is clearly represented in two houses, one based on population and the other with their two senators. For you to say that the South in any way lacked any type of representation, and to have the balls to compare it the situation that existed before the revolution, proves to me that you are either mildly autistic or consistently drunk when you post about politics.

Lets put it this way.

The divide between north and south ran much deeper than slavery. It began before emancipation was ever an issue.

Things like:
The assimilation of state dept from the revolutionary war (the south got screwed because they had already settled most of their debt)
The forming of a federal bank and selling of securities (once again the south was screwed because there werenâ??t southern institutions to sell securities in the south)
The flexibility of the constitution with this passage in the legislative powers:

â??To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.â??

The general exercise of tariffs (initially the only source of federal revenue) (something that was worse for the south who without industrialization had to buy more manufactured goods)
Followed by alcohol taxes (something that really damaging to rural areas)
Subsidized industrialization by the federal government (that spent federal money mostly in the north)

What do all these things all this things had in common? First, these issues were all pretty strictly divided geographically between north and south. Second, the south lost every one.

The fact is that in the development and establishment of the nation the southern states were constantly overruled by the northern ones. Washington DC was located where it is to try and help appease the southern states to avoid a breakup of the union (slavery was in NO WAY a prominent issue at this point).

And yes, if you want to add the equation of slavery to the end of that list it fits in perfectly. BUT you have to realize that the divide between north and south had been present since the nation started and encompassed many issues at the base of which was always federal authority vs state sovereignty.

(by the way those are just some of the issues I know of, if I did some research Iâ??m sure I could find more)

[/quote]

Excellent post! The Southern states thought of themselves as independent entities. The North, loaded down with immigrants who came from countries that worshipped big government, thought that the Feds should have ultimate power.

This is true today where big government worshippers congregate, like rats, in big cities on the coasts. They then elect criminals like Obama to make an even bigger government. Obama is the King Rat (great movie, btw) while all the lesser rats help enslave everybody.

[quote]jacross wrote:
I think the US Civil War was more complex than most people pretend it was. I’m not going to go as far as to suggest that slavery was not an issue but (especially to a foreigner like me)[/quote]

Slavery was the cause of the Civil War like oil was for the “War on Terror”… it had a part, it was not even close to the whole.

For me (and a state that had it as a State Flag) it did show pride. Even tho it was introduced in 1956 it still showed the history (even if all aren’t proud) of where this country has been.

Since we have made it clear that the Civil War wasn’t all about slaves, it was about the Southerners trying to return to the Articles of Confederation and return the power to the states and not the federal government. It was a rebellious statement made by those states to show they didn’t want the “Government” to rule them.

Of course people use it as a derogatory term/statement however people are always going to twist things out of context in order to fit their agenda. However you don’t let a few ruin it.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I don’t have the patience to argue with you. You are neither educated on the matter nor intelligent in the least, and no matter what I say, you won’t read it- you’ll just ramble on with your half witted theories.

I am done. It’s clear here who knows what they’re talking about and who is the sad victim of Southern apologists. Time for you to go back to your reenactor’s camp where they’re still fighting this one. [/quote]

First of all, you don’t know me, yet you insist on constantly attacking my character rather than addressing my points. I think that reflects more negatively on you than me.

Second, I just specifically showed the south’s lack of fair representation in the federal government on a half dozen issues, instrumental to the early development of the nation, and all outside of slavery. There is your lack of representation. Are you denying all those points because I lack personal credibility with you?

Third, you are entirely misjudging my thoughts on the civil war. I’ve stated previously that good came of the civil war and the victory of the north. I do not believe that the “wrong side” won. However, nor do I believe that the “right side” won.

I am more politically sympathetic to the constitutional interpretation (and hence more limited role of federal authority) of the like of Madison as opposed to someone like Hamilton.

History however is far to complicated as to suppose which political affiliation for the young nation would have yielded the better results today. I do know that it has turned out well, but that is all.

I regret the civil war only in the sense of what we as Americans lost not that the Confederacy lost. I do believe there were alternatives for both sides that could have yielded results without all out war.

I have also noted that I won’t associate myself with the battle flag since it has flown specifically for the kkk and segregation and such. I see it as racist.

But I guess these thoughts make me a racist redneck hillbilly who don’t know no better.

The way you tear into re-enactors and sons of confederate veterans is wholly ignorant bigotry. The civil war is an amazing decisive moment in American history that should at least be remembered.

But just out of curiosity, I googled civil war events to see where all the racist bigots lived so I could think bad thoughts about them and this is what I got for upcoming events:

Civil War Encampment and Living History
La Porte, IN

Battle of Chaplin Creek
Franklin Grove, IL

Hesston Junction Civil War Railroad Days
Hesston, IN

Annual Gettysburg Civil War Battle Reenactment
Gettysburg, PA

Capture of Gladeville
Wise, VA

6th Annual Civil War Weekend
Cheektowaga, NY

Annual Civil War Era Reenactment
Boscobel, WI

Tinker Homestead and Farm Museum 5th Annual Civil War Days
Henrietta, NY

Civil War Reenactment & Living History Event
Woodbury, CT

Eckley Minersâ?? Village Civil War Encampment
Weatherly, PA

Civil War Encampment
Hamlin Beach State Park, NY

7th Annual Civil War Days
Lamoni, IA

http://www.reenactmenthq.com/eventlist.asp?i=12&p=1&s=

That was the first page.

Have fun hating New York and PA and IL, AND IN, AND WI, AND CT, AND IA for clinging to their civil war era racist ideals.

And those darn sons of confederate veterans, who try to build parks and restore and maintain and old homes, build museums, and heaven forbid maintain cemeteries. Because arguing that the soldiers in the civil war didn’t fight over the institution of slavery is racist!

I also don’t think WW2 was fought over specifically the Jewish people, I guess I’m Anti-Semitic too.

But when all else fails, just shout racism as loud as you can. Your moral snobbery is repulsive.

The Civil War erupted because the South refused to accept the results of the 1860 presidential election, although it had been conducted in strict conformity with the rules of the Constitution. The cause of the Confederacy was not the cause of limited government or states rights. Slavery represented the ultimate rejection of limited government.

Allowing slavery to spread without restriction, as Southerners demanded at the 1860 Democratic convention, was not spreading limited government. It was spreading despotism. Yet, the South demanded not only that slavery be allowed to spread but that its spread be protected by, as Thunderbolt pointed out earlier in the thread, an unprecedented EXPANSION of federal power.

The Fugitive Slave Law (so much for states rights); the famous Gag Rule employed in Congress in the 1830s and 1840s to silence opposition to slavery; postmasters refusing to delivery antislavery literature in the Southern states; most slave states classified public speech against slavery as a criminal offense. I don’t know how libertarians can get their heads around these facts.

Neo-confederates like to gloat over the fact that Lincoln demanded an increase in governmental power, coupled with increases in revenue, in order to prosecute a war started by secessionists. (They don’t mention that the Confederacy also demanded the similar powers and Southerners during the war were often begging the Confederate government to do still more (like declaring martial law, etc.) But Lincoln understood that the economic policies necessary to fund the war were all temporary: they were emergency measures that would end with the end of the emergency. In 1861, we had our first income tax; by 1863, we had a progressive income tax. By 1872 the income tax was gone. In 1865 we had a huge budget deficit and a mammoth $2.7 billion national debt. That was followed by twenty-eight consecutive years of budget surpluses. Fifty years after the Civil War, under mostly Republican rule, the national debt had been more than halved. These are not the legacies of a president who wanted to replace limited constitutional government with a large welfare state.

You have to fast-forward several decades for that – to Woodrow Wilson, John Dewey, and the like.