There was no reason the South shouldn't have been able to withdraw from the union under the basic tenets that formed the foundation of the country. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that governments are formed by men, and when men no longer feel that their government is serving their needs they are free to leave and start a new one.
To say that they didn't mean that to apply to the United States as well is to completely lack understanding of the frame of mind of the founders.
Unfortunately, slavery is such a morally repugnant institution that we have allowed the issue to be clouded by the fact that the North ended it. Saying that the North was the right side in the Civil War is basically an ends justify the means argument and wouldn't be any different then saying it's okay to deny due process to a particularly offensive criminal.
It doesn't help that any primary source scholarship that doesn't toe the line gets blasted. If slavery was the whole reason to fight the war, and less than 10% of Confederates owned slaves, why did 50% plus of the population fight or try to fight?
Tom Woods' "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" has got some traction.
A relevant quotation from a review of the book by the Mises Institute:
The Civil War—as [Woods] points out, [was] not a genuine civil war since the South did not wish to replace the national government—was not fought to end slavery: Lincoln rather aimed to consolidate national power. In opposing Lincoln’s dictatorship, the South defended the cause of liberty, a fact that was not lost on the great classical liberal Lord Acton. In a letter of 1866 to Robert E. Lee, Acton said that he 'saw in States’ rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy' (p. 74).
Yes, it would have been a trial on the legality of succession, and not a question the north wanted answered. If he was found innocent that would have meant they just spent the last 4 years killing people and ravaging the South without any legal justification.
Interestingly, after he was held without bail for 2 years, a bunch of prominent Northern businessmen pooled their money to bail him out; people who didn't share any of his beliefs but felt that he was being denied due process and that was wrong. I have often said that in the past we were a more principled people, and that sort of thing demonstrates it.
There was no reason the South shouldn't have been able to withdraw from the union under the basic tenets that formed the foundation of the country. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that governments are formed by men, and when men no longer feel that their government is serving their needs they are free to leave and start a new one.
To say that they didn't mean that to apply to the United States as well is to completely lack understanding of the frame of mind of the founders.
Unfortunately, slavery is such a morally repugnant institution that we have allowed the issue to be clouded by the fact that the North ended it. Saying that the North was the right side in the Civil War is basically an ends justify the means argument and wouldn't be any different then saying it's okay to deny due process to a particularly offensive criminal.
It doesn't help that any primary source scholarship that doesn't toe the line gets blasted. If slavery was the whole reason to fight the war, and less than 10% of Confederates owned slaves, why did 50% plus of the population fight or try to fight?
Razor on the Civil War. Razor on Lincoln the tyrant.
Tom Woods' "Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" has got some traction.
A relevant quotation from a review of the book by the Mises Institute:
and thats why jefferson was never tried for treason...
Yes, it would have been a trial on the legality of succession, and not a question the north wanted answered. If he was found innocent that would have meant they just spent the last 4 years killing people and ravaging the South without any legal justification.
Interestingly, after he was held without bail for 2 years, a bunch of prominent Northern businessmen pooled their money to bail him out; people who didn't share any of his beliefs but felt that he was being denied due process and that was wrong. I have often said that in the past we were a more principled people, and that sort of thing demonstrates it.
pretty decent summary of the war tbh
Tenets don't form a country. Coercion and fear of the government does.
Anarchist.