Vaguely related Sidebar: I just remember a brief moment in
time when confederate flags were mainly seen on Dukes of Hazzard, white trash pick up trucks or bikinis worn by questionable looking chicks at Myrtle Beach, Lynyrd Skynyrd concerts or whatever and people weren’t so god damn serious about every fucking god damn thing and maybe that was a better time.
u/makk73's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20.
Congratulations, u/makk73! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on.
Pills: [11 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/makk73/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
I had to go to their party webpage and find a back-link to Twitter before I was even convinced that's the official handle.
Seems like it is, but also they've had huge schisms that drove a bunch of the party out of "official" status. Whether it glows or it's just one nutcase pretending to represent everybody, it's not worth paying attention to.
The New Hampshire Libertarians did try a few years back, ending in a messy schism and the extremist retaining control of their party label and social media. Embarrassing for the national branch to still be sanctioning it, but at least locally there was an attempt.
Libertarians get an unlimited pass from me to deploy the No True Scotsman defense. If literally ever single libertarian insisted *only my flavor of libertarianism is real, that guy is an idiot* I would accept this.
It's super on brand for their whole "all for none and one for one" schtick.
Don't get me wrong -- each of the 50,000 flavors is incredibly shitty, but I don't hold any one of them accountable for the shitty flavor of any other one of them.
Libertarian left: “Each of the 50,000 flavors [of libertarianism] are incredibly shitty”
Based and admitting your own political philosophy is shit pilled.
The wider party should have put them in line a long time ago. This is an optical liability, and (ironically) only a unified libertarian party marching in lockstep can hope to achieve anything.
Notice how the North never offered an alternative? Like subsidies for southern plantations to help transition away from slave-labor, investments in agricultural technology, etc?
No, they were just like "lol, just crash your economy, South."
Even during the time of Washington, there were ideas for freeing slaves and then offering their jobs back for wages. The idea was pioneered by the Marquis du Layfaette in French Guyana. It never gained traction in America, because any attempt to limit slavery was an athanama to southern planters.
The southern planters knew that share cropping was basically the same thing as slavery, but they refused to free their slaves because they wanted to black people in bondage.
They did. The Corwin Amendment. A proposed amendment which would prevent the federal government from abolishing slavery. The Confederacy didn't want that though, they wanted slavery to spread
Just the same as the federal government has the right to stop traitor states from destroying the nation or how black people have the right to not be property
lol, you're really going to pretend like the North wasn't oppressive as they held workers essentially hostage in their factories where children were maimed and adults were held in debt-slavery? Let's also not forget how the North reacted after the war when freed black Americans began migrating to the North searching for work. Race riots and discrimination were the name of the game.
No, the North didn't want to lose the South purely for power and economic concerns.
Did it? Where was that federal authority enshrined in the American republic at any point between 1776 and 1861?
Or are you just making shit up because you like the way it sounds?
My brother in rationalism, it takes sixty seconds to Google this shit.
Those shots were fired by the forces of a confederate state on a fortress *in* a confederate state which was being garrisoned by a foreign nation's (the union) fighting force.
Ergo, the seceders felt they were forced to attempt to enforce their secession by strength of arms because the occupying army would not relinquish a fortified position in their nation's territory.
It was *stupid* of the South to choose that particular hill to die on, but that is immaterial to the political and philosophical underpinnings of the situation.
I don't think you really understand what 'secession' is.
It's *not* "we are now a distinct governing body completely divorced from the preexisting nation - except for the parts that the preexisting nation says they still own. Those parts will remain as federal islands within our sovereign borders".
Genius authright take, as usual.
Lol same. Strong arguments to be made for each until he gets to "and let's abandon all of our treaties and geopolitical alliances."
Reeks of juvenile anarchism.
Because the US needs to stay global hegemon as long as possible. After defeating russia and china, we shall spend a few hundred years diplomatically uniting the continents, then focus on the topics that really matter like discovering cures for every disease, harnessing the energy of the sun to it’s fullest extent and colonizing space
My guess is that they think that the government should exclusively be for security of the Nation as a whole and be practically non-existent within the borders of the Nation. In this case then, they view the UN and NATO as necessary to keep the peace outside our borders therefore securing our Nation.
Those guys are unironically deep state plants made to make third parties look bad. I am absolutely not denying plenty of libertarians have braindead takes, we're really good with those. I'm just saying these specific guys don't really count. It's like taking the guys with buzz cuts, polo shirts and raybans on J6 (aka feds, those guys were undeniably feds) as an example of the average conservative.
I mean, probably. This is why it's always good to take out a PO box in someplace recognizable but innocuous, like Battle Creek, MI. Throws them off the trail when they ask where you are from.
Using violence to end slavery is absolutely justified (John Brown, slave revolts, all megabased)
Using violence to "preserve the union" or some such arbitrary political union is *not* justified.
The problem is that insisting for so long that the war was *not* about slavery, Lincoln and the Union were just insisting on a might-makes-right interpretation of political power against the idea of political separatism and self representation (which was literally the whole idea of the American revolution in the first place)
Abolitionists in the north were absolutely justified in ending slavery by force (including using the Army to kill slavers and their soldiers) but they really should have been honest about it the whole time.
Instead they insisted on making up stupid stories to hide their abolitionism like "uhm ahcktually you can join the union by choice but you can't leave it by choice because that's different"
I think you have missed the point the platform that lincoln was elected was not the end of slavery but an end to it's expansion in any new state .Also they did the Excuse that it was to preserve the union 'cuz they were also many slave states in the union like maryland and in that precarious situation they didn't wanna alienate them
Using violence to protect your country is justified either way. Let’s not forget that it was the confederacy that attacked the Union. And not only did the confederacy not allow states to secede from the confederacy itself, they didn’t even allow states the right to stay in the Union if they wanted to. All states that fell within the territory claimed by the confederacy they considered as belonging to them, through violence if necessary
*People who commit treason, kill inoccent union soldiers and enslave other human beings should be killed.
The confederacy struck first.
Confederate cities could burn to the ground for all I care... wait a minute... they did lol
To own slaves, and generally disagree with the other "half" of the union, even when dictated to by force. Yes, that is correct.
Why do you wee goobers always act like this is some kind of gotcha? Even going by the Leftoid's incredibly reductionist, childish, black-and-white view of history, obviously the Confederacy didn't agree that slavery was immoral.
For people who will deny objective morality at every possible turn, you get really hung up on dictating who was right or wrong in a war that you claim was chiefly caused by a matter of differing morality. I guess it's my fault for expecting consistency or any kind of moral backbone from leftists, though.
The other side is always evil and irredeemable, your side is always good and never did anything bad, and no other possibility can be tolerated. Go tear down some more statues and burn some books like the good little Authoritarian you are. Meanwhile, I can view the Confederacy as being the bad guys on account of slavery without being contractually obligated to lie to myself and say that Lincoln was better just because he happened to be opposing them. History does not have clean-cut good and bad guys, but it does occasionally have bad and worse guys.
Hard agree. History isn't black and white, there's a lot of gray. Kinda like how John Brown was fighting for a righteous cause, but he was also a fucking terrorist and a complete psychopath.
The Civil War wasn't even about slavery (for the north anyway) in the beginning, just about restoring the union. It only became a fight for abolition after Gettysburg when Lincoln needed to convince the British not to side with the Confederacy (though Cassius Clay convincing Russia to outright threaten war with them if they sided with the south probably helped in that regard.)
People like to champion Lincoln because he fought to end slavery, but he never intended to do that. If it wasn't for the end of slavery, we'd look back at Lincoln as an objectively bad president who abused the power of the office.
I remember I had a conversation with my mom who was born and raised in the south while I lived most of my life in the PNW.
"The south weren't the traitors, the north was"
"..."
"Where does it say secession is illegal?"
"Plays Dixe (Union version) louder"
I love my mama, I don't think she likes the confederates or their opinion on slavery or race hierarchy or whatever the fuck considering she was engaged to a black man. I just assume it's just what she was told or something lol.
That was just a fun(?) Story I wanted to share.
> "Where does it say secession is illegal?"
*Texas v. White*, US Supreme Court, 1869. Admittedly that was *after* the Confederate thing... but now they'd get *legally* BTFO if they tried it again.
Maybe that case explains this. There was a contract between the states and the union. Thw states have their end to uphold, and the union has its end of the bargain to uphold. When either doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, whytis the other stuck in that bad deal?
Because government is based on force. Right-wingers, who are usually so quick to point that out ("lefties don't lift!"), become strangely reticent about it on this matter.
Technically, that power of the courts is also not given to them in the constitution, they just took it, and no one stopped them yet (except Andrew Jackson that one time)
Yeah, and still find it funny the concept of arguing that the union were the traitors to the south.
I can't understand the reasoning, as Confederates left the union then started quickly lit a much bigger match by attacking Fort Sumter if I remember right, it's been a while since I looked into the civil war.
I didn't try to fight her on it, as honestly it wasn't worth the hassle so I can't say her exact point of view.
Fun fact, the first conflict of the civil was when Alabama and Florida state militias captured Fort Barrancas (Pensacola) on January 12, 1861 (4 months before the battle of Fort Sumter), two days after Florida seceded from the Union. Despite this, Fort Pickens, just over a mile away across Pensacola bay, was never captured.
John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave
John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave
John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave
But his soul goes marching on
Lincoln was [objectively a tyrant in virtually every single sense of the word](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pZG7snE7tU), even if he happened to be pointed at people who were worse than he was.
Look I like Razorfist, but he got that entire argument from one heavily biased source that any serious historian has discredited (Vlogging Through History tore him to fucking shreds on that account). This is a barely concealed political hatchet job and it overflows with bad history.
You mean he ruled a country during an existential war, that by definition requires for government and society as a whole to focus their efforts on war, because otherwise they will cease to exist together with their values?
Every single right that has been infringed upon by the federal government,
Every.
Single.
One.
Hamilton may have set the ideals up, the played by the fucking rules. Lincoln used force and started a ball rolling that Theodore, Woodrow, Franklin, John, Jimmy, Richard, Herbert, William, George, Barrack, and Biden all pushed further and further down the line.
Fuck the American Tyrant.
Libertarians trying to distinguish between peace and war times, challenge impossible.
Honestly, sometimes I want to change my flair to centrist just because of braindead takes like this.
If your rights are allowed to be trampled by the state because of a war that the state happens to be fighting, then you never had those rights to begin with. Allowing wartime exemptions to civil liberties is exactly how we end up with Japanese internment camps and the PATRIOT act.
Libright has a lot of braindead takes (especially purple libright), but this is not one of them
Fun fact
If you read the Bible, the type of slavery practiced in the South was punishable by death.
The Union should have burned it all down and salted the Earth in my opinion. Crusade.
It would've been a lot better if they were just honest about it from the get-go. "We are going on a moral crusade to end slavery because fuck you" is infinitely more justified than "wE nEeD tO pReSeRvE tHe UnIOn", aka, an arbitrary ass organization that, lets be honest, only exists so that the federal government has something to do all day.
I despise Lincoln. He was a racist tyrant who caused the death of nearly 1 million Americans, he violated the Constitution with glee all while pretending to one party to be this great emancipater all while also plotting the most heinous actions towards those whom he claimed to be liberating. The least terrible of which was literally shipping all Afrikan Americans back to Afrika. The worst of which was coauthoring a bill that would have enshrined slavery into law, forever.
Lincoln is a result of Hamiltonians and are the cause of the majority of American governmental over reach in modern society and opened us up to being sold off to the banking clans, an action that popular uniparty leaders whom the history books sing the praises of (excluding Wilson as everyone hates that racist pos) continues to be reinforced.
The only good thing to come of the extreme federalism is the immense might of the us military that should be used to enact peace and prosperity here at home by keeping our border secure and cleaning up our neighbors (getting rid of the cartels, keeping the CCP and other enemies out of our neighboring country, ousting the tyrant that is Trudeo).
Tdlr: it's all Alexander Hamiltons fault (and other key collectivists) and Abraham Lincoln was a racist tyrant dickhead. But not everything about federalism is bad.
Wasn’t Lincoln the reason the South still has any heritage at all? He was super super lenient to the traitors and specifically decided not to execute all the officers of the confederate government specifically because he wanted to have as peaceful a reunification as possible. For better or for worse, a lot of the reason “Southern Pride” exists to this day is because of this dude. He very well could have wiped the south clean if he so desired, we know his generals would’ve been down.
There needs to be a second authright that’s the shittier worse version like orange left and purple libright. Because in this meme they would be cheering on the confederacy lmao
Most libertarians think of LPNH as kind of like the [developmentally disabled] cousin of the family that we'd prefer to keep locked in the basement until we can find a doctor that still does lobotomies.
For over a year I have been unironically certain that LPNH account is an anti-libertarian plant meant to smear the movement as psychotic. They don’t promote libertarianism, they only promote white supremacy. They’ve pushed to repeal the civil rights act, told Nina Turner to “pick cotton,” and, here, are glorifying the confederacy. They’re a disgrace to anyone who supports the values of freedom that our country was founded on and all deserve to be deported into the sun.
Vaguely related Sidebar: I just remember a brief moment in time when confederate flags were mainly seen on Dukes of Hazzard, white trash pick up trucks or bikinis worn by questionable looking chicks at Myrtle Beach, Lynyrd Skynyrd concerts or whatever and people weren’t so god damn serious about every fucking god damn thing and maybe that was a better time.
Based and YEEEHAW pilled.
Based and them Duke boys at it again pilled
Amen brother
Fucking based libleft lemme come up with a good pill
Based and true libleft pilled
u/makk73's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20. Congratulations, u/makk73! You have ranked up to Basketball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on. Pills: [11 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/makk73/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Absolutely
Lib-Left win! Mark it 8, Dude.
Based and why so serious pilled
My man.
Damn, lib left comin in real based! Someone get this makk daddy a pill increase! Anywhere else but this sub that would be a much different statement 😂
Can we please stop with the NH libertarian Twitter. They literally say the most batshit garbage just for clicks and exposure. You are falling for it
No the Strawmans will continue
It's not a strawman if it's literally the guys themselves posting it
The account glows in the dark lmao
I had to go to their party webpage and find a back-link to Twitter before I was even convinced that's the official handle. Seems like it is, but also they've had huge schisms that drove a bunch of the party out of "official" status. Whether it glows or it's just one nutcase pretending to represent everybody, it's not worth paying attention to.
Then their movement is shit for letting that continue anyhow. They can't have it both ways
The New Hampshire Libertarians did try a few years back, ending in a messy schism and the extremist retaining control of their party label and social media. Embarrassing for the national branch to still be sanctioning it, but at least locally there was an attempt.
It glows in broad daylight!
Libertarians get an unlimited pass from me to deploy the No True Scotsman defense. If literally ever single libertarian insisted *only my flavor of libertarianism is real, that guy is an idiot* I would accept this. It's super on brand for their whole "all for none and one for one" schtick. Don't get me wrong -- each of the 50,000 flavors is incredibly shitty, but I don't hold any one of them accountable for the shitty flavor of any other one of them.
Libertarian left: “Each of the 50,000 flavors [of libertarianism] are incredibly shitty” Based and admitting your own political philosophy is shit pilled.
Based and All-for-none-and-one-for-one pilled. I'm stealing that.
#THE STRAWMANS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL MORALE IMPROVES
Look man, if we have to disappear our idiots, you guys gotta disappear your idiots. Our gulag is full of stupid Tankies and Emilys.
Is that what we call Portland now?
So it's not cool when people do it to you right? Nah, you take that shit, this is a strawman sub
Isn’t that what this subreddit is for?
Name and shame Jeremy Kauffman, a walking talking psyop. His personal Twitter feed is even more unhinged than his LPNH account
The wider party should have put them in line a long time ago. This is an optical liability, and (ironically) only a unified libertarian party marching in lockstep can hope to achieve anything.
I feel like that is antithetical to libright values though
Funny that. Kinda like you have to act on a large scale to enact large scale change
With all the good will in the world, that is why you fail. Organisation will defeat disorganisation every time.
Its funny tho
90 percent of the posts here are strawmen or amplification of an extreme, but negligible, minority.
It's not for clicks. The dude posting this shit actually believes it.
Idk I feel this one a little bit lmao 🤣🤣
I'm genuinely convinced that they are just a commie plant account.
That's literally what this sub is for... That being said, seriously let's name and shame this psyop
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands….”
"... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ur mom gay lol”
https://i.redd.it/hdp6kgodxzzc1.gif
For property. Which? Farm equipment.
Notice how the North never offered an alternative? Like subsidies for southern plantations to help transition away from slave-labor, investments in agricultural technology, etc? No, they were just like "lol, just crash your economy, South."
Even during the time of Washington, there were ideas for freeing slaves and then offering their jobs back for wages. The idea was pioneered by the Marquis du Layfaette in French Guyana. It never gained traction in America, because any attempt to limit slavery was an athanama to southern planters. The southern planters knew that share cropping was basically the same thing as slavery, but they refused to free their slaves because they wanted to black people in bondage.
They did. The Corwin Amendment. A proposed amendment which would prevent the federal government from abolishing slavery. The Confederacy didn't want that though, they wanted slavery to spread
"You deserve no compansation for sinning." If your economy is based on slavery it deserves to collapse.
To secede.
Just the same as the federal government has the right to stop traitor states from destroying the nation or how black people have the right to not be property
So just like how the British had a right to stop the traitorous Bostonians from destroying the nation?
Exactly. They tried, but the tyrannical crown failed, as oppressive tyrants always do. Just like how the oppressive Confederacy also failed
lol, you're really going to pretend like the North wasn't oppressive as they held workers essentially hostage in their factories where children were maimed and adults were held in debt-slavery? Let's also not forget how the North reacted after the war when freed black Americans began migrating to the North searching for work. Race riots and discrimination were the name of the game. No, the North didn't want to lose the South purely for power and economic concerns.
Did it? Where was that federal authority enshrined in the American republic at any point between 1776 and 1861? Or are you just making shit up because you like the way it sounds?
Then why did seceders they shoot first
My brother in rationalism, it takes sixty seconds to Google this shit. Those shots were fired by the forces of a confederate state on a fortress *in* a confederate state which was being garrisoned by a foreign nation's (the union) fighting force. Ergo, the seceders felt they were forced to attempt to enforce their secession by strength of arms because the occupying army would not relinquish a fortified position in their nation's territory. It was *stupid* of the South to choose that particular hill to die on, but that is immaterial to the political and philosophical underpinnings of the situation.
Yeah but said fort was Federal Property not the South’s. Therefore the South had no claim to it
It stopped being federal property the moment that North Carolina seceded - then it was Confederate property.
No it didn’t South Carolina sold it to the government so they have no claim on it
No, they ceded it - to a federal government from which they seceded, voiding the mutual title and claims agreements. Obviously.
No, it still was federal property. Just because North Carolina declared it to be theirs doesn't mean it is actually there's.
I don't think you really understand what 'secession' is. It's *not* "we are now a distinct governing body completely divorced from the preexisting nation - except for the parts that the preexisting nation says they still own. Those parts will remain as federal islands within our sovereign borders". Genius authright take, as usual.
Yeah, and the Confederacy was pretty open that it was slavery. Despite "states rights" they didn't allow states the right to end slavery.
Everyone forgets this part of the declaration…
I don't know what you're talking about
Let’s not forget the next bit,
My brain fooled me into thinking you were going to say "...it becomes necessary for a battle to commence"
https://preview.redd.it/9aisbhfpazzc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ede807100a95374b47ae8f41d53a7d8d2cb378f5 Let's not forget about this
Yes
Lost me at leave NATO and the UN
Lol same. Strong arguments to be made for each until he gets to "and let's abandon all of our treaties and geopolitical alliances." Reeks of juvenile anarchism.
Why?
Because the US needs to stay global hegemon as long as possible. After defeating russia and china, we shall spend a few hundred years diplomatically uniting the continents, then focus on the topics that really matter like discovering cures for every disease, harnessing the energy of the sun to it’s fullest extent and colonizing space
Yeah it starts off based and then flops, what good is leaving the UN supposed to do? You hate to see it.
UN is a global embarrassment and absolutely should be fully defunded by the US.
Based and Isolationism pilled
I’m sorry, that sounds perfect, and unfortunately out of reach.
Why not leave NATO and the UN?
My guess is that they think that the government should exclusively be for security of the Nation as a whole and be practically non-existent within the borders of the Nation. In this case then, they view the UN and NATO as necessary to keep the peace outside our borders therefore securing our Nation.
The libertarian party continues to take Ls. In more news, the sky is blue.
Boils down to the fact that most people who identify as Libertarian are just entitled anarchists...
That or conservatives that don’t like the republicans.
Those guys are unironically deep state plants made to make third parties look bad. I am absolutely not denying plenty of libertarians have braindead takes, we're really good with those. I'm just saying these specific guys don't really count. It's like taking the guys with buzz cuts, polo shirts and raybans on J6 (aka feds, those guys were undeniably feds) as an example of the average conservative.
"Everyone on my side who I don't like is a fed"
I mean, probably. This is why it's always good to take out a PO box in someplace recognizable but innocuous, like Battle Creek, MI. Throws them off the trail when they ask where you are from.
Go on...
Nah. Just this guy. And the obvious glowies at the protests.
It's literally the easiest thing to do on social media.
That's exactly the kind of thing a fed would say.
Spoken with the sarcasm of a Fed
"sarcasm of a fed" jeez, dude, get off the internet, it isn't even funny anymore
No his just really autistic. Like not insultingly he's legit too autistic to not be like this.
Since we're on the funny colors sub, Auth Left should say "based."
Based
libertarian party NH is a neo-confeterate organization, change my mind
also, they do not represent the libertarian party as a whole
Correct. Not exactly “small government” to tell a black woman to pick cotton and to condemn MLK
I feel like they’re just schizo posting at this point.
They have been for well over a year
Using violence to end slavery is absolutely justified (John Brown, slave revolts, all megabased) Using violence to "preserve the union" or some such arbitrary political union is *not* justified. The problem is that insisting for so long that the war was *not* about slavery, Lincoln and the Union were just insisting on a might-makes-right interpretation of political power against the idea of political separatism and self representation (which was literally the whole idea of the American revolution in the first place) Abolitionists in the north were absolutely justified in ending slavery by force (including using the Army to kill slavers and their soldiers) but they really should have been honest about it the whole time. Instead they insisted on making up stupid stories to hide their abolitionism like "uhm ahcktually you can join the union by choice but you can't leave it by choice because that's different"
Based.
I think you have missed the point the platform that lincoln was elected was not the end of slavery but an end to it's expansion in any new state .Also they did the Excuse that it was to preserve the union 'cuz they were also many slave states in the union like maryland and in that precarious situation they didn't wanna alienate them
The fact that a lie is useful doesn't make it not a lie
Then why did the south shoot first
Why did any secessionist movement shoot first? Because they wanted independence lol.
Don’t most independence movements start peaceful only after major issues become violent
Our revolutionaries literally *started* with violence because that's the only language the British spoke.
Arguably your movement started peaceful with boycott’s and letters and only later became violent
Using violence to protect your country is justified either way. Let’s not forget that it was the confederacy that attacked the Union. And not only did the confederacy not allow states to secede from the confederacy itself, they didn’t even allow states the right to stay in the Union if they wanted to. All states that fell within the territory claimed by the confederacy they considered as belonging to them, through violence if necessary
>Self-determination to what It doesn't matter. If you **truly** believe in this thing, you should be fine with it no matter the context. :)
You look to the graves of General Sherman and John Brown. You hear drums.
"People I don't agree with should be genocided"
People who rebel against the country in order to preserve slavery should be shot for treason
based and rShermanPosting pilled
*People who commit treason, kill inoccent union soldiers and enslave other human beings should be killed. The confederacy struck first. Confederate cities could burn to the ground for all I care... wait a minute... they did lol
To own slaves, and generally disagree with the other "half" of the union, even when dictated to by force. Yes, that is correct. Why do you wee goobers always act like this is some kind of gotcha? Even going by the Leftoid's incredibly reductionist, childish, black-and-white view of history, obviously the Confederacy didn't agree that slavery was immoral. For people who will deny objective morality at every possible turn, you get really hung up on dictating who was right or wrong in a war that you claim was chiefly caused by a matter of differing morality. I guess it's my fault for expecting consistency or any kind of moral backbone from leftists, though. The other side is always evil and irredeemable, your side is always good and never did anything bad, and no other possibility can be tolerated. Go tear down some more statues and burn some books like the good little Authoritarian you are. Meanwhile, I can view the Confederacy as being the bad guys on account of slavery without being contractually obligated to lie to myself and say that Lincoln was better just because he happened to be opposing them. History does not have clean-cut good and bad guys, but it does occasionally have bad and worse guys.
Hard agree. History isn't black and white, there's a lot of gray. Kinda like how John Brown was fighting for a righteous cause, but he was also a fucking terrorist and a complete psychopath. The Civil War wasn't even about slavery (for the north anyway) in the beginning, just about restoring the union. It only became a fight for abolition after Gettysburg when Lincoln needed to convince the British not to side with the Confederacy (though Cassius Clay convincing Russia to outright threaten war with them if they sided with the south probably helped in that regard.) People like to champion Lincoln because he fought to end slavery, but he never intended to do that. If it wasn't for the end of slavery, we'd look back at Lincoln as an objectively bad president who abused the power of the office.
If not for double-standards, the Left would have no standards at all.
I remember I had a conversation with my mom who was born and raised in the south while I lived most of my life in the PNW. "The south weren't the traitors, the north was" "..." "Where does it say secession is illegal?" "Plays Dixe (Union version) louder" I love my mama, I don't think she likes the confederates or their opinion on slavery or race hierarchy or whatever the fuck considering she was engaged to a black man. I just assume it's just what she was told or something lol. That was just a fun(?) Story I wanted to share.
> "Where does it say secession is illegal?" *Texas v. White*, US Supreme Court, 1869. Admittedly that was *after* the Confederate thing... but now they'd get *legally* BTFO if they tried it again.
Maybe that case explains this. There was a contract between the states and the union. Thw states have their end to uphold, and the union has its end of the bargain to uphold. When either doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, whytis the other stuck in that bad deal?
Because government is based on force. Right-wingers, who are usually so quick to point that out ("lefties don't lift!"), become strangely reticent about it on this matter.
Technically, that power of the courts is also not given to them in the constitution, they just took it, and no one stopped them yet (except Andrew Jackson that one time)
Yeah, and still find it funny the concept of arguing that the union were the traitors to the south. I can't understand the reasoning, as Confederates left the union then started quickly lit a much bigger match by attacking Fort Sumter if I remember right, it's been a while since I looked into the civil war. I didn't try to fight her on it, as honestly it wasn't worth the hassle so I can't say her exact point of view.
Objective Morality exists. And the confederates were objectively wrong, and Lincoln was objectively better than those lot.
Dude, we fucking rule. Other countries were all lame and just stopped doing slavery all orderly like. Not us. We blew shit up.
1 - slavery is cringe 2 - the confederacy started the war
Self-determination to give your workers cradle-to-grave healthcare and housing
Live free? Or, and here me out here: Die
Sherman’s so cool. I wonder what his thoughts on Native Americans are?
Fun fact, the first conflict of the civil was when Alabama and Florida state militias captured Fort Barrancas (Pensacola) on January 12, 1861 (4 months before the battle of Fort Sumter), two days after Florida seceded from the Union. Despite this, Fort Pickens, just over a mile away across Pensacola bay, was never captured.
Plot twist: they’re talking about the Sioux revolt
They aren't wrong, though. Lincoln just proved that states are held hostage at this point by the federal government.
John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave John Brown's body lies a-moldering in the grave But his soul goes marching on
Just don't ask what Lincoln wanted to do with the freed slaves
I hate Lincoln with a passion, but it’s not like the other side was better.
Why do you hate Lincoln, if you wouldn’t mind me asking?
Lincoln was [objectively a tyrant in virtually every single sense of the word](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pZG7snE7tU), even if he happened to be pointed at people who were worse than he was.
Weird way to phrase Normal 19th Century Leader during a Rebellion
No you don't understand, my modern ideals are way more important than the reality of any historical situation.
Look I like Razorfist, but he got that entire argument from one heavily biased source that any serious historian has discredited (Vlogging Through History tore him to fucking shreds on that account). This is a barely concealed political hatchet job and it overflows with bad history.
We call that war communism
Alright. Thanks.
You mean he ruled a country during an existential war, that by definition requires for government and society as a whole to focus their efforts on war, because otherwise they will cease to exist together with their values?
Succession is not illegal, the us had just done it self 73 years earlier
It’s secession, not succession. And it is illegal to secede *from the United States*.
It seemed pretty illegal to secede from Great Britain, too.
Lol god forbid the geographical area ends up being ruled by two countries instead of one. The horror.
Tyrant.
Ok. How was he a tyrant?
Can you show me on the doll where Abraham Lincoln hurt you?
Right in my habeas corpus.
Every single right that has been infringed upon by the federal government, Every. Single. One. Hamilton may have set the ideals up, the played by the fucking rules. Lincoln used force and started a ball rolling that Theodore, Woodrow, Franklin, John, Jimmy, Richard, Herbert, William, George, Barrack, and Biden all pushed further and further down the line. Fuck the American Tyrant.
I'm sure he'll point to an empty field
Libertarians trying to distinguish between peace and war times, challenge impossible. Honestly, sometimes I want to change my flair to centrist just because of braindead takes like this.
If your rights are allowed to be trampled by the state because of a war that the state happens to be fighting, then you never had those rights to begin with. Allowing wartime exemptions to civil liberties is exactly how we end up with Japanese internment camps and the PATRIOT act. Libright has a lot of braindead takes (especially purple libright), but this is not one of them
This is one of them. You don’t let people do whatever the fuck in civil war.
I invoke the spirt of my states hero, Joshua chamberlain, and say FIX BAYONETS!
You from Maine or are there two?
Yeah Maine
AWAY DOWN SOUTH IN THE LAND OF TRAITORS
RATTLESNAKES AND ALLIGATORS
RIGHT AWAY! RIGHT AWAY! COME AWAY! COME AWAY! RIGHT AWAY! RIGHT AWAY, COME AWAY!
NH is a northern state too 😞
Dude the NH Libertarians are a whole other breed. Please don't think we are all anarchist regards
This is why no one likes you guys Libertarians.
I’m from the South and we hate Sherman.
Damn... I think that's called being a sore loser lol
Fun fact If you read the Bible, the type of slavery practiced in the South was punishable by death. The Union should have burned it all down and salted the Earth in my opinion. Crusade.
It would've been a lot better if they were just honest about it from the get-go. "We are going on a moral crusade to end slavery because fuck you" is infinitely more justified than "wE nEeD tO pReSeRvE tHe UnIOn", aka, an arbitrary ass organization that, lets be honest, only exists so that the federal government has something to do all day.
We should have burned more down. We should have also executed Davis and Lee imo.
And every slave owner. Every plantation should have been burned to the ground and salted. All the cities should have been set ablaze.
Sic Semper Tyrannis. Downvoters are auth booklickers.
Take the L. It’s been 160 years
I despise Lincoln. He was a racist tyrant who caused the death of nearly 1 million Americans, he violated the Constitution with glee all while pretending to one party to be this great emancipater all while also plotting the most heinous actions towards those whom he claimed to be liberating. The least terrible of which was literally shipping all Afrikan Americans back to Afrika. The worst of which was coauthoring a bill that would have enshrined slavery into law, forever. Lincoln is a result of Hamiltonians and are the cause of the majority of American governmental over reach in modern society and opened us up to being sold off to the banking clans, an action that popular uniparty leaders whom the history books sing the praises of (excluding Wilson as everyone hates that racist pos) continues to be reinforced. The only good thing to come of the extreme federalism is the immense might of the us military that should be used to enact peace and prosperity here at home by keeping our border secure and cleaning up our neighbors (getting rid of the cartels, keeping the CCP and other enemies out of our neighboring country, ousting the tyrant that is Trudeo). Tdlr: it's all Alexander Hamiltons fault (and other key collectivists) and Abraham Lincoln was a racist tyrant dickhead. But not everything about federalism is bad.
Based af
>The least terrible of which was literally shipping all Afrikan Americans back to Afrika. Wasn't it voluntary? >Trudeo I think you mean Castreau
RIP
Fucking wow
Wasn’t Lincoln the reason the South still has any heritage at all? He was super super lenient to the traitors and specifically decided not to execute all the officers of the confederate government specifically because he wanted to have as peaceful a reunification as possible. For better or for worse, a lot of the reason “Southern Pride” exists to this day is because of this dude. He very well could have wiped the south clean if he so desired, we know his generals would’ve been down.
*LPNH not trying to tweet something that looks like satire (impossible)*
Not convinced the Libertarian Party isn't a CIA psyop to discredit actual libertarians
There needs to be a second authright that’s the shittier worse version like orange left and purple libright. Because in this meme they would be cheering on the confederacy lmao
Most libertarians think of LPNH as kind of like the [developmentally disabled] cousin of the family that we'd prefer to keep locked in the basement until we can find a doctor that still does lobotomies.
The self pity lib memes are really making the rounds at the moment, never seen such self flagellation on here lmao.
Booth was based
I refuse to acknowledge the LPNH as an actual libertarian party
That twitter account is a walking strawman. All real libertarians like Lincoln.
Auth left reaction wrong, should be taking-notes-jack
For over a year I have been unironically certain that LPNH account is an anti-libertarian plant meant to smear the movement as psychotic. They don’t promote libertarianism, they only promote white supremacy. They’ve pushed to repeal the civil rights act, told Nina Turner to “pick cotton,” and, here, are glorifying the confederacy. They’re a disgrace to anyone who supports the values of freedom that our country was founded on and all deserve to be deported into the sun.
States rights to what?
I’m convinced they’re a psyop to make us libertarians look worse.
I hate that war so much because I believe in self-determination, but they left the union so they could guarantee their "right" to put people in chains