/liberty/ - Liberty

Why are you not banned yet? We need a QTDDTOT.

As for a serious answer, I don't actually got a thing about the golems' civil war. Try /r9k/, most of them are'nt americans but they are the ones who taugh the oldfags from /pol/ back in the day.

God created every human in his image, even the niggers. Enslaving niggas is blasphemy.

>>87273

christcuck strikes again

Outnumbered and outgunned. They had better commanders and more dedicated grunts, but there was simply no way for them to win a one on one fight. Their strategy focused on winning international recognition, which was the best chance they had.

As long as loyal freedom-loving patriots keep the idea alive, we have not lost.

>>87271

>ban those I find disagreeable

Very libertarian of you anon.

>>87299

Not to mention industry and logistics. The North had the factories and a much better-developed rail system, and I believe, don't quote me on this more food-focused agriculture (corn and wheat), while Southern agriculture had greater focus on cotton and similar goods.

>>87315

Amen to that, anon. Planning to move to Dixie once I'm out of school, I promise I won't LARP.

>>87317

If a dog shits on my lawn I'm more than entitled remove it from the premises.

>>87322

There was some switching over to food, but that's not the sort of thing you can do fast across an entire country. Add on dumb luck like Stonewall getting shot and special order 191 getting intercepted, and the south just couldn't get the traction for countries like the British empire to decide that it would be worth their time to jump in, even to prop up free trade and secure the flow of cheap cotton for their textile industry.

>>87324

Shit argument. Try harder.

>>87335

So if a dog shits on someone else lawn you can kick it off their property?

>>87365

You gave that lazy strawman argument that "hurr, it's the BO's board, so he can do whatever the fuck he wants", you're ignoring the fact that if it's in the BO's interests to maintain quality on the board, especially since it's HIS board, then he would ban undesirable elements to enhance the experience of the rest of the community. If he wants to purposefully wants a shit board then sure, it's his board so he can fuck it up as much as he wants too.

Allowing people to fling shit at each other and do whatever they want will devolve this place into /b/, if you walk into a room where you want to have productive intellectual discussions with the people there, but all they are doing is shouting at the top of their voice and calling you a faggot because "muh free speech", then you would rather look for a place that asks people to be civil.

>>87273

Slavery is an economic dead end and most Southerners didn't own slaves. Even with white supremacist founding documents, reality would probably have ensued within a generation to smother slavery in an independent South. Perhaps not with full citizenship and rights for black right away and maybe even with forced relocation to Liberia, but the slavery just isn't good dollars and cents. Never has been once civilization gets out of its Iron Age. It only lasted as long as it did in Brazil because of bureaucratic inertia and in the Ottoman Empire because of Islam.

>>87315

Southerners are the most nationalistic Americans there are now and the heavily black population will not cotton to the idea of neo-Confederacy. Just let it go already. It's not worth beating a dead horse anymore.

>>87386

It was a efficient, well functioning system in the south. The biggest plantation houses were built in the years leading up to the war.

>Southerners are the most nationalistic Americans there are now

How long do you think that will last with growing attacks on southern heritage and history?

>heavily black population will not cotton to the idea of neo-Confederacy

Where's that pic of a white liberal with a BLM sign and a black guy with a confederate flag when you need it?

>>87386

>the heavily black population will not cotton to the idea of neo-Confederacy

If niggers can be convinced to support Che Guevara they can be convinced to go along with an independent South.

>>87394

>It was a efficient, well functioning system in the south.

It worked well enough, but that's not the same thing at all as peak efficiency. Slavery can't hope to out-compete an employed plantation because the latter is governed by supply and demand in all aspects, whereas the former has to use central planning for all production-related matters. Rome in its sunset years is a good example of slavery running an economy into the ground given enough time.

>>87397

Dixie was easily the wealthiest part of the country prewar. That's a bit better than "well enough".

>>87398

And if it had a truly free market rather than slave labor it would have been even wealthier and grown even quicker is what I'm saying. I'm not trying to lambast Dixie or anything like that, don't take this the wrong way; they were far and away better than the Union at any rate. It's just a bit over-romanticizing to claim that the system in place couldn't have been better in any way.

>>87399

Rome's collapse can hardly be blamed entirely on slave labor anyway. There was heavy debasement of the money supply, the fact that it had simply gotten too big, the over reliance on foreign mercenaries, all of these things played a part at the very least.

It's partially >>87299 and partially that the Southern commanders made a number of mistakes because the Yankee commanders sucked as bad as they did. They autistically kept pushing an offensive war when they should have pushed a defensive war to the point where they made their good commanders make costly mistakes. Between that and a lot of bad luck, what should have been a war of attrition while the North ran out of money/resources since they weren't self-sufficient became a smaller force trying to and failing to Blitzkrieg a larger force.

>>87423

I'm not denying that, in fact I'd be the first to say that Rome was a clusterfuck caused by a variety of factors. My point is that slavery is not optimal, and Austrian economics shows rather clearly that it's never as efficient in the long run as having a labor market. That's all I'm trying to say here.

>>87436

The north had endless waves of immigrants ready to be drafted and Lincoln was going to borrow, print, or raise through taxes as much money as necessary to win the war. Additionally, it wasn't as clear at the time that defense was so important. This was right on the cusp of centerfire cartridges and before machine guns, with massed formations and cavalry still vital parts of battle tactics.

>>87436

Couldn't the offensive operations have captured the Union government and forced recognition of the Confederacy?

>>87386

LOL, I love it. Whenever somebody tries to justify the existence of the CSA and pretend it was in any way compatible with human liberty despite being a LITERAL SLAVE STATE apologists like this try to make this weak ass bullshit claim out of thin air that slavery was "economically nonviable" and would have magically disappeared anyhow. As if it's not worth a war to keep two or three more generations of human beings free from chattel slavery. As if the lives lost defending that abominable peculiar institution are worth crying over instead of celebrating as the death of evil men and their retarded pawns.

>>87394

But exceptional autists like this don't even bother with those bullshit optics. Doesn't even try to justify or downplay it. Even fucking praises the Confederacy for having a well-functioning slave system. It's not even something for this asshole to deny; he celebrates it.

The fact that you believe this is why your heritage and history are garbage and deserve to be ridiculed and mocked into the cultural joke it is today. The Southern "cause" was objective moral evil, period, and you don't get to be heroes.

>>87399

>I'm not trying to lambast Dixie or anything like that, don't take this the wrong way; they were far and away better than the Union at any rate

No they fucking weren't. They rebelled for the "right" to hold other human beings as property. You should be embarrassed to pretend to give a fuck about liberty and defend this, but you won't because right-libertarians have this strange edgy teenager fetish where they have to go all contrarian and champion the despicable just to go against the grain.

>>87449

>Don't need to pretend about the truth.

Except the part where the declarations of secession from all of the damn Confederate states say they were rebelling for their right to keep African slaves because whites are racially superior. There is no truth in pro-Confederate arguments, just lying and denial. Anything to AVOID facing the truth.

>Both these factors would have been at play

And resulted in 50 or 75 more years of dehumanizing slavery while the rest of the world waited for the South to get over white supremacy.

>Too bad for you the north didn't go to war to free slaves.

LOL "too bad" that's totally, utterly, 100% irrelevant. Yes, I know the North didn't go to war to free slaves. I don't care, either. They didn't need to go to war for emancipation for the war to be about slavery. It is enough on its own the South went to war to preserve slavery. It is enough that the Northern victory resulted in the end of slavery. It doesn't matter that Lincoln wasn't on a moral crusade to stop the institution of slavery but it matters no less that his election scared the South enough to think that their "right" to slaves would be threatened and they had to rebel in order to keep it alive.

>Neck yourself you commie faggot

<Everyone who recognizes true evil when they see it and doesn't make mealy mouthed apologies is a Communist!

Boomer detected. Drink bleach.

>It was over state's rights and the role of central government

HAHAHAHAHA yeah, it was over the states' rights to own slaves and the role of the central government to possibly restrict or deny that. Don't give me that "Articles of Confederation" bullshit that every scholar of merit has already debunked.

>>87450

>There is nothing about the cost of providing the necessities for a slave's life and health

You'd have to pay a free worker enough for him to get those things on his own anyway.

>quelling revolts

Revolts were not a widespread problem in the antebellum south.

>actively preventing the acquisition of new competitive skills

Slaves would frequently learn skilled trades such as masonry or land surveying. This made them more productive and valuable, giving their owners a motive to teach them such things.

>but by no means makes Southern chattel slavery a good and sensible way to run an economy

He said with hindsight and modern technology.

>Conspicuous consumption and going into debt to look noble and aristocratic was a common vice of the Southern rich

If it was, they wouldn't have had the money to keep going and running their plantations.

>Many of those lavish houses put their owners in the poorhouse

[Citation Needed]

>It would have been unthinkable in prior decades to taken down Confederate monuments or even speak up in public about wanting that to happen

That has more to do with the increasing radicalization of the mainstream left, and Dylan Roof finally giving them the excuse they were looking for.

>American culture has been bombarded with propaganda about the racist South for decades

Propaganda's staying power is directly tied to whether it's actively being pushed. That plus the easily refutable nature of the specific claims made both work in our favor.

>The Southern system, reliant on slave labor, just was not competitive

Tell that to the European powers that needed southern cotton for their textile industries.

>Policies against educating slaves

Were meant to stop people from teaching slaves to read and right for the most part.

>the ban on the importation of foreign slaves

because a tribesman from Central Africa is going to know all sorts of useful skills for working on a plantation.

>Where slavery endures it has much more to do with culture and tradition than real economic advantage

Remoteness and the availability of modern labor saving devices along with the relative stability of a region have more to do with it.

>>87451

>say they were rebelling for their right to keep African slaves

Lincoln promised not to ban slavery in his first inaugural address. He supported the Corwin Amendment, which would have acknowledged and protected slavery at the federal level. 4 states only seceded after he called for an army to force the south back into the union (3 others tried to secede, but were stopped).

>because whites are racially superior

Not an idea northerners at the time disagreed with.

>There is no truth in pro-Confederate arguments, just lying and denial

no u

>Anything to AVOID facing the truth

See above.

>And resulted in 50 or 75 more years of dehumanizing slavery

Half a century is if anything a generous estimate for how long it would have taken.

>It is enough on its own the South went to war to preserve slavery

*alongside other factors

>It is enough that the Northern victory resulted in the end of slavery

in a very disorderly manner that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Before the Emancipation Proclamation, there were no preparations made to accommodate for refugee blacks, resulting in dirty, crowded, disease ridden camps. It was purely a wartime measure meant to weaken the south.

>Drink bleach

You first.

>HAHAHAHAHA yeah

State's right not to get forced into paying all the taxes, state's right to not have a central bank forced on them, state's right not to helplessly watch all their money go up north to line the pockets of corrupt politicians and businessmen.

>Don't give me that "Articles of Confederation" bullshit

Not sure what exactly you're talking about here, but it must be pretty cool if you hate it that much.

>>87453

>You'd have to pay a free worker enough for him to get those things on his own anyway

That's not true. Free workers are paid the value of their labor whether or not that's a "living wage." The costs of paying workers a wage are less than paying for their upkeep directly in all sectors especially because they will need to work more themselves and can seek lower prices for their needs and wants in a competitive marketplace.

>Revolts were not a widespread problem

They were enough of a problem to create a persistent atmosphere of fear that they could happen and to inspire precautions to check them. These impose costs.

>Slaves would frequently learn skilled trades such as masonry or land surveying. This made them more productive and valuable, giving their owners a motive to teach them such things.

This was not nearly as commonplace as you are implying. Owners also feared that with knowledge to build cam knowledge for sabotage.

>He said with hindsight and modern technology.

Both irrelevant and untrue. In the first place I'm passing judgement on whether or not Southern slavery was sustainable and useful. That it made sense at the time doesn't change that. It at best explains why people would have made the mistake of thinking so. Also economic arguments against slavery were very much being made at the time of the Civil War and before. Frederic Bastiat and Henry Clay are two such examples.

>If it was, they wouldn't have had the money to keep going and running their plantations.

They didn't.

>[Citation Needed]

https://books.google.com/books/about/Race_And_Culture.html?id=6NwOAQAAMAAJ

>That has more to do with the increasing radicalization of the mainstream left

And yet it is in the mainstream. People are easily cowed by being called racist even if it isn't true. In an image conscious post social media culture, I expect this to get worse and not better Donald Trump notwithstanding as the current youth ages into a voting bloc.

>Propaganda's staying power is directly tied to whether it's actively being pushed.

It is still being pushed

>That plus the easily refutable nature of the specific claims made both work in our favor

It hasn't stopped them yet. They're only getting louder.

>Tell that to the European powers that needed southern cotton for their textile industries

I gladly would. Southern cotton became less and less important compared to Northern staple foods and finished goods. "King Cotton" and the Southern goal of controlling the world's cotton supply economy was a terrible idea. Egypt and South America happily provided the difference and exportation of by then established technologies to the British Empire lead to some shift back to India. Again, it was not competitive. No longevity.

>Were meant to stop people from teaching slaves to read and right for the most par

Which devalued them as workers. A less educated work force is inferior to an informed one, yet it was deemed necessary to keep slaves under control. Another reason slave states cannot compete with free markets.

>because a tribesman from Central Africa is going to know all sorts of useful skills for working on a plantation

Yes, actually. Your sarcasm is actually correct when taken at face value without irony. A lot of what made Southern plantations run well including the types of crops they grew were influenced by knowledge among the slaves themselves.

>Remoteness and the availability of modern labor saving devices along with the relative stability of a region have more to do with it.

I do not think so, no. Even the introduction of technology and exposure to foreign societies disapproving of slavery takes a long time to erode attitudes where owning slaves is seen as a sign of status or socially considered a right and proper thing to do. That is pretty much the story of slavery's decline as it was being stamped out by the British Empire. There were revolts in the Ottoman Empire when the sultan's arm was twisted into emancipating the slaves, not revolts among the slaveholders but the common folk, because Islam teaches that the non-Muslim is to be kept beneath the Muslim. Asian societies were pulling teeth more or less trying to eliminate small scale slavery to have access to British-dominated trade because it was an ancient sign of power and merit. People don't always choose to be economically rational, though I have higher faith in Southern Americans acting in this manner if only because they really would have had no choice in the matter as a consequence of geography.

>>87438

I'm not trying to be an ass, but the South lost because of pure arrogance. Lincoln could have borrowed as much money and raised as many taxes as he wanted- the fact remains that Lincoln's entire war with the South was because they couldn't afford the (wage) slave labor they had without the taxes that came in from the South. A war of attrition would have been bloody, but if the South could have held out for one more winter (by, y'know, not constantly going on the offensive), the North would have collapsed under the weight of their own largess. People didn't want a war and they were sick and tired of the war. The only reason popular support for the war began to come back was because the Northerners saw a number of decisive victories against the South because of the Southerners stretching themselves too thin. Artillery was miles ahead of its time during the civil war and most battle tactics were still cavalry-based tactics (a fact that was exploited heavily during WWI). The entire Trent Affair shows just how incompetent the North really was and how they were one minor fuckup away from completely losing before even factoring in civil unrest.

Really all the South had to do was not lose the Mississipi and not lose the railways. Yeah, ocean routes to Britain would have made for a much shorter war (Napoleon wanted to wipe the Union off the face of the Earth and the Brits were largely in agreement, they just didn't want to agree to fuck up the North unless the other agreed to it), but even without those ocean routes the South could have survived if they defended their key infrastructure instead of playing soldier up north and getting bombarded by Union Artillery. Gettysburg and Chancellorsville were pretty much the turning point for the South that decided their defeat (Even if they "won" Chancellorsville they still lost Jackson).

>>87440

That's basically what Gettysburg was. If J.E.B. Stuart had been there instead of fucking around up North like a dumbass, it might have succeeded. That strategy might have worked if they had done it early on, but the South was overly cautious when they should have been blitzkrieging to get European support, and became too offensive when their time window effectively closed and they needed to go back to a defensive strategy.

>>87446

>They rebelled for the "right" to hold other human beings as property.

And the North waged a massive war against their countrymen and burned down half of the South because they were spoiled brats about not getting their taxes all while working people as wage slaves. It amazes me that people can paint the North in any sort of positive lighting when you consider they're basically the epitome of big government and Lincoln destroyed any semblance the Constitution had of being a valid and enforced document.

Point being, it's much easier to shit on the South when it benefits the current US government to do so since the CSA is an open sign of defiance/rebellion against governmental largess as anyone raised in or around the South is well aware. There's a reason it's called The War of Northern Aggression. It takes a braver man to recognize that for any shortcommings of the South (and there were many), its continued survival and prosperity would have likely eventually lead to the two countries reunifying (on favorable terms for the South when the damned Yankees taxed themselves into a Venezuelan-tier mess), an end to slavery for economic reasons, and likely much more state sovereignty to defy the federal government than is currently present. Shit, I'd like to wager that if the South had fought a war of attrition resulting in a peace treaty, the USA would have never illegally entered World War 1 as negotiations were in effect, and we would have a fraction of the current global issues we have today.

>>87467

>And the North waged a massive war against their countrymen and burned down half of the South

1.) They ceased to be fellow countryman when they left the union.

2.) War wouldn't have been necessary if slavery hadn't been so important to the South that it felt the need to secede to keep it going.

>they were spoiled brats about not getting their taxes

Or maybe the South were being spoiled brats about not paying what were fairly levied taxes imposed with no shortage of input from Southern representatives. Maybe you just making strong assertions despite having not fucking idea what you're talking about.

>wage slaves

Economically illiterate myth. There is no such thing.

>It amazes me that people can paint the North in any sort of positive light

Fuck off with your whataboutism. The North isn't being portrayed in a positive light just by pointing out the truth behind the Confederate cause. Maybe comparably a lighter shade of grey, but sorry that's just the way reality is sometimes.

>epitome of big government

The South had no problem with big government. The Confederate government consumed more and more authority and overruled the allegedly precious rights of the states all throughout its existence during the war. It is a myth that small government was what the Confederates were after. They just didn't want a government that could outlaw slavery for the foreseeable future.

>Muh Lincoln was Satan

And yet the US is still in existence with appeals to Constitutionality being made every fuckdamn day in the courts.

>>87468

>CSA is an open sign of defiance/rebellion against governmental largess as anyone raised in or around the South is well aware

I was raised in the South and am under no delusion whatsoever that the war had anything to do with "big gubbmint." Read a book that wasn't written by a conspiratard.

>There's a reason it's called The War of Northern Aggression.

Losers being crybullies. Nuff said.

>It takes a braver man

Love the euphemism of chattel slavery and a whole country propped up to preserve it as just "shortcummings." Classy move, bro, Jesus is surely smiling upon you.

>>87468

>>87458

It is beyond naive to think that economic rationale would kill off slavery in the South.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/why-non-slaveholding-southerners-fought

There were deep, abiding, and widespread cultural reasons to perpetuate slavery in the Southern states. Southern representatives wrote shit like wanting their whole white populations to be burned up in a Sherman-tier holocaust rather than be "degraded" by having free blacks be seen as their legal equals. It was critically important to their psychology to suppress blacks beneath them. A poor Southern white might have shitty job or no reliable work, he might not have a way to find work because certain jobs were only performed by slaves, and he might be living in pig shit, but at least he wasn't a nigger. At least he wasn't a slave.

>>87472

>>87473

>Green Party

>Unapologetic authoritarian

No surprise there. Also you talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.

>>87475

You hurl "authoritarian" like an empty pejorative the way Boomers go on about "commies" and "fascists." Wanna know what's authoritarian? Defending an anti-capitalistic quasi-feudal oligarchy founded specifically to perpetuate the enslavement of other human beings. It doesn't get much more authoritarian than wanting to subjugate an entire race on the basis of their race.

>talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded

Funny way of describing well-documented historical facts backed up with primary sources

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/

The "Lost Cause" myth is long debunked. It isn't sustainable anymore. Pro-Confederate efforts to sanitize and whitewash the motives of the war are refuted by Confederate sources themselves. I would say it's like denying Darwinian evolution, but that's too charitable at this point. It's more like the goddamn Time Cube. Fractal wrongness on every front.

Also a sage isn't a downvote, newfag.

>>87458

>

>These impose costs

Preventing something isn't as expenseive as stopping it after it's underway and undoing the damage.

>Owners also feared that with knowledge to build cam knowledge for sabotage

yeah I guess you're right. Wouldn't want Tyrone to kill massa with his knowledge of making bricks.

>Both irrelevant and untrue

Wrong.

>https://books.google.com/books/about/Race_And_Culture.html?id=6NwOAQAAMAAJ

Can you give me a page number? I'm not going to go through 331 pages to do my opponent's legwork for him.

>People are easily cowed by being called racist even if it isn't true

It's losing power from how much it's been overused.

>It is still being pushed

It won't be for long.

>They're only getting louder

They can shout all they want, doesn't make their lies more believable.

>"King Cotton" and the Southern goal of controlling the world's cotton supply economy was a terrible idea

Cotton is a important crop to this day. Trying to be the main source of something people want is a perfectly sensible business strategy.

>Which devalued them as workers

Literacy wasn't nearly as important in a 19th century agrarian society. It's certainly a good skill to have, but not the end of the world if you can't read.

>I do not think so, no

You think wrong.

>>87459

>The South was afraid they would eventually get crowded out and out-voted by free states

They would have gotten outvoted on all sorts of issues.

>Again, proponents of secession did not trust him

It had passed both houses and gotten ratified by a few northern states. They could easily have forced it through by rejoining and then it would have been a huge uphill battle to get a new amendment in undoing the Corwin amendment.

>this doesn't change the fact

So white supremacy is okay when Yankees do it?

>Also there's a difference between believing that your race is superior and believing it's justified or good to enslave the lesser race

Most northerners went a step beyond supremacy and wanted blacks out of the country entirely. Lincoln himself believed this up until the final months of his life.

>The pro-Confederate position is not taken seriously by historians for a reason

Because they're big government stooges who can't favor anything that goes against the official truth?

>Trying to keep slaves automatically and overwhelmingly overrules whatever other noble goals you wish to ascribe to the Confederacy

But war crimes against civilians don't?

>Those factors you refer to are tiny footnotes compared to the all-consuming importance of keeping slavery alive

The only slavery related difference between the CSA Constitution and the USA Constitution+Corwin amendment was whether slavery was extended by default. You really expect people to believe that one factor outweighs all the changes relating to state sovereignty, free trade, and limited central government?

>which were the lowest they'd ever been by the time of the Civil War

Never mind the upcoming Morrill tariff that represented a 70% increase (ignoring the further wartime increases that stuck around for decades after the war).

>A few policy wonks gave half a shit about this

It was an important part of the republican party platform, and something southern democrats had always been opposed to.

>That was money stolen from the labor of enslaved human beings

So it's okay for the north to use it on themselves? They sure hated slavery, but loved the money made off of it.

>It's obvious you are irredeemably ignorant about history.

Enlighten me. Why is the previous founding document relevant here?

>>87472

>They ceased to be fellow countryman when they left the union

Lincoln's (entirely bullshit) argument was that they never left the union.

>War wouldn't have been necessary

Maybe the north should have gotten its own house in order and abolished slavery for themselves before coming down south.

>The South had no problem with big government

Then why'd they limit what the central government could do, limit how it could raise funds, and reserve more powers for the states?

>with appeals to Constitutionality being made every fuckdamn day

And then getting blown off by Hamiltonian traitors who mutter some half-assed excuse about interstate commerce or necessary and proper powers.

>It is beyond naive to think that economic rationale would kill off slavery in the South

So an export driven economy that can't export things will just keep trucking along like nothing has changed?

>Defending an anti-capitalistic

*anti-cronyist

>quasi-feudal oligarchy

*ignores northern robber barons and corruption*

>It doesn't get much more authoritarian than wanting to subjugate an entire race on the basis of their race

What about forcibly deporting them all because they're taking your jobs?

>>87494

>left libertarianism doesn't exist

>therefore right libertarianism does

>>87495

Left libertarian is an oxymoron, while whether conventional libertarians/ancaps are right depends on how you define left/right, which is a real mess.

>>87494

>It was functional at the time, sure

I'm not trying to claim anything more than this. It worked at the time, but it was never going to last forever.

>>87498

All right, thanks for clarifying that.

>>87496

>conventional libertarians

lol

>>87496

All the definitions of right I can think of are just as disconnected from liberty as the left.

>>87510

>All the definitions of right I can think of

Give us some examples.

>>87504

By "conventional" i mean the mild ancap type, maybe even the ones that are pro super small government, not some "left libertarian" or "green libertarian" or "feminist libertarian" or any other group that tries to look like them. The situation distantly reminds me of anarchism, where there are lots of different anarchisms, but they generally seem like a disguise for identity politics and easily abolished given the chance to progress, be it ancoms, anarcho-feminism, christian anarchism, anarcho fascism(lol), or any other kind that puts identity politics along with "uniting" or being "voluntarily". Generally, when they have to choose between anarchism and the latter, they easily drop it, so i recommend explicitly stating the difference between them, hence the "conventional" libertarians, i.e. austrian school of economics.

>>87510

Interestingly, it is not an uncommon opinion here to view movements publicly recognized as "right" as being left, natsocs, for example. I think this is due to the distinction being viewed as collectivism/individualism, instead of just using generally accepted groups as they do not really have a proper definition. I'd prefer not to use these terms entirely, though, at lest to remove misunderstanding, as well as to not have multiple definitions of the same ideas.

>>87523

>I'd prefer not to use these terms entirely, though, at lest to remove misunderstanding, as well as to not have multiple definitions of the same ideas.

Such rebranding is appealing in theory but in the long term just leads to subversion; any organization not explicitly right-wing eventualyl becomes left-wing. The LP, Porcfest, the Free State Project, and C4SS all tried this "neither right nor left" shit, and they all got co-opted by drug-addicted, reality detached libertines and sodomites.

>>87523

>By "conventional" i mean the mild ancap type, maybe even the ones that are pro super small government

I figured as much…

>not some "left libertarian" or "green libertarian" or "feminist libertarian" or any other group that tries to look like them.

This… is why I lol'd.

The first use of "libertarian" in a political context was in the writings of Dejaque (communist) to Proudhon (socialist). It's first public use was in Dejaque's "Le Libertaire: Journal du Mouvement Social."

As such, "conventional libertarian" is, literally, a synonym for, well, communism or socialism, depending on which author was using it. (non-marxist communism or socialism, but that's also a redundant statement). Rothbard tried to hype it over a century later, but that's not exactly its 'conventional' use… hence the slight chuckle.

I mean, it's (sometimes) legitimate, it's just not conventional. You accidentally typed "communist," because history.

>The situation distantly reminds me of anarchism, where there are lots of different anarchisms, but they generally seem like a disguise for identity politics and easily abolished given the chance to progress, be it ancoms, anarcho-feminism, christian anarchism, anarcho fascism(lol), or any other kind that puts identity politics along with "uniting" or being "voluntarily".

Bluntly, you see what you want to see, and you apparently want to see Soros checks.

Locally, the anarchist left rolls hard, and it's all about local farm-to-table and DIY. I wouldn't know where to find "anarchofascism for pansexual unity" if I tried.

>>87529

>The first use of "libertarian" in a political context was in the writings of Dejaque (communist) to Proudhon (socialist).

Conventional:

Based on or in accordance with general agreement, use, or practice; customary: conventional symbols; a conventional form of address.

Today, libertarian in context of lefties if only used by them. It does not magically becomes conventional just because it was used first. The same as with capitalism, personal definition of which lefties shill everywhere even today. So fuck you, i got it all right.

>you see what you want to see

Not an argument, everything can be considered subjective. You've got to try harder than that.

>Locally, the anarchist left rolls hard, and it's all about local farm-to-table and DIY.

And, while theoretically it fits into a generally anarcho individualistic scenario, due to its inefficiency it either naturally fails or creates a state to support it, becoming indistinguishable from simple comminism, though extremes like stalinism are very possible.

If ancoms were interested in only "local farm-to-table and DIY", they would not have any problems with ancaps. it is their incapability of producing anything of value for prolonged periods of time that makes them the way they are.

>I wouldn't know where to find "anarchofascism for pansexual unity" if I tried.

Because fascists are not generally the guys to respect the "pansexual" or any other queer type of people? You'll more likely to find christian white nationalistic anarcho fascists, though due to small amounts of anarcho fascists in general it's still unlikely.

>>87269

Their army was made up of too many boomers.

>>87530

>if you manufacture anything, a state will immediately develop. Also, despite manufacturing being totalitarianism being my primary critique, you're bad for manufacturing for yourself but never manufacture anything. At the same time.

Maybe it's time to log off and take a nap?

>>87535

>if you manufacture anything, a state will immediately develop.

If you fail being productive, you'll use force to take goods from more productive people.

>manufacturing being totalitarianism being my primary critique

my entire point is that manufacturing or any kind of work has nothing to do with communism, of any sort.

Maybe it's time for you to pull your head out of your ass already?

>>87536

>If you fail being productive, you'll use force to take goods from more productive people.

Congratulations; you've just posited the left (and classical liberal) critique of capitalism.

>my entire point is that manufacturing or any kind of work has nothing to do with communism, of any sort.

Communism is quite directly a theory of manufacturing - the theory of universal access.

At least you didn't directly assert paradox as an "and" statement this time.

>>87538

>manufacturing being totalitarianism being my primary critique

Except that capitalism proves to be the most effective system of resource distribution. You might even call it natural order.

>Communism is quite directly a theory of manufacturing - the theory of universal access.

universal access or manufacturing?

Communism is a system of distribution of resources, not some "manufacturing", stop spewing idiotic descriptions or get out.

>>87539

>left (and classical liberal) critique of capitalism

instead of

>manufacturing being totalitarianism being my primary critique

>>87539

>Communism is a system of distribution of resources

Nope. Open-access MoP. It doesn't say a DAMN thing about distribution. Communist-Agorism, Communist gift economies, communist lottery… it's all possible. Communism has NO distributive implication whatsoever.

…sure, lots of folks have theorized that prices will fall to zero with literally infinite competition, but a projected outcome of something is not that something.

>Except that capitalism proves to be the most effective system of resource distribution.

Well, it's proven to be the most effective system of ensuring government bailouts, so I guess that's a type of resource distribution.

Not sure I'm as gung-ho for it as you are, though.

>>87541

>MoP

Changed factors of production to fit marxist narrative.

>Communist-Agorism

lol

>Communist gift economies

Is not present in the world, guess why?

>communist lottery

Golden

>Communism has NO distributive implication whatsoever.

Oy vey, you capitalist are stealing, do you mind giving back to workers the factory that never was theirs?

>lots of folks have theorized that prices will fall to zero with literally infinite competition

Infinite competition, along with any other infinite things, does not belong to this world outside of theory, but without government regulations the prices would reduce, sure.

>it's proven to be the most effective system of ensuring government bailouts

Of course it would be marxist "capitalism", what else? You forgot to mention that it's the same as german fascism.

First, government operates outside of market by definition, so this already missed. Second, the fact that economies require markets to function to not be destroyed is proved by the fact that they are present in any country, put aside the ones without, like, any economy, despite government programs leeching resources from them.

>>87542

>Changed factors of production to fit marxist narrative.

Marx was booted out of the First International for purging folks.

Amusingly enough, he started purging folks when they started bitching about his "socialism is when the government does stuff" bullshit.

>Is not present in the world, guess why?

Gift economies are very much alive and present in the world. I have no goddamn idea whether the tools used to produce the items being given away are open-access or not, nor am I terribly worried about it.

>Oy vey, you capitalist are stealing, do you mind giving back to workers the factory that never was theirs?

This is insurrectionary socialism. It has basically nothing to do with communism.

It is also classical liberalism; Smith basically outright suggested reversing the enclosures through direct seizure.

>First, government operates outside of market by definition

Try selling kilograms of heroin openly on the streetcorner. I think you'll find that the state interjects government into the market quite a lot.

>Second, the fact that economies require markets to function to not be destroyed is

…disproven by the natural world, which has elaborate economies of things like water and nitrogen and a total absence of a monetary system.

However, markets are not capitalism. Were it so, charming things like agorism, market anarchism, and other left-anticapitalist market strategies really wouldn't have spawned, say, the SEKIII/Rothbard debates, for instance. And as noted neither communism, nor socialism, much delve into the distribution of things… just manufacturing and governance, respectively.

>>87547

>Marx was booted out of the First International for purging folks.

Like i care. There are plenty of cultural marxists nowadays, i doubt they care either, they still are called marxists.

>his "socialism is when the government does stuff" bullshit.

Though maybe he got it right back then.

>Gift economies are very much alive and present in the world.

Yeah, sure people asking for money in public symbolize the strength of the communist movement. Any deals of significant scale are done within classical markets, not your abomination powered by peoples' unwillingness to admit its ineffectiveness to the point where they gain nothing and participate simply to prove "it works".

>This is insurrectionary socialism. It has basically nothing to do with communism.

Oh, so i guess your commie flavor thinks ussr was capitalist, huh?

>I think you'll find that the state interjects government into the market quite a lot.

And this is the reason why it exists outside of market, because it uses violence to intervene between individuals making voluntary exchange. What part of "operates outside of market" did you not understand? Do you even know what a market is?

>which has elaborate economies of things like water and nitrogen

Economy is a human construct. Do not try to shill your personal definitions here.

>monetary system

Money are not necessary for a market to function, though it makes things easier, i bet you didn't know even that, braindead.

>And as noted neither communism, nor socialism, much delve into the distribution of things

Just because you say so does not mean it doesn't. The most notable and remembered thing about commies, aside from their ows citizens killed, is their efforts in resource distribution.

>However, markets are not capitalism.

Markets are not capitalism, but capitalism is the system that bases itself on the markets most.

>Yeah, sure people asking for money in public

…actually, more along the lines of folks putting the perfectly good furniture next to the dumpster rather than in it in the apartment complex.

There's more, but if you're a drain on an imageboard, you'd be a drain on anything else you discover.

>symbolize the strength of the communist movement.

Mode of manufacture =/= mode of distribution. Scroll up again until you're ready to participate.

>Oh, so i guess your commie flavor thinks ussr was capitalist, huh?

The founder of the USSR thinks the USSR was capitalist.

>Economy is a human construct.

"Nonmaterial woo."

I prefer purely materialist economics.

>capitalism is the system that bases itself on the markets most.

I'm guessing that market anarchism, agorism, market socialism and the like might have something to say about that.

>>87493

>Preventing something isn't as expenseive as stopping it after it's underway and undoing the damage.

It does not have to be nor was this my argument. The few dramatic slave rebellions created an atmosphere of fear and burdensome policing that wouldn't have existed otherwise and would have been unnecessary without slavery.

>yeah I guess you're right. Wouldn't want Tyrone to kill massa with his knowledge of making bricks.

Murder is not the only form of sabotage. A sarcastic one liner is not an argument.

>Can you give me a page number

I cannot. I have the audiobook and not a hard copy.

>Cotton is a important crop to this day. Trying to be the main source of something people want is a perfectly sensible business strategy

Not in the way the South pursued it, no. It made their economy far too dependent on a narrow base of exports.

>Literacy wasn't nearly as important in a 19th century agrarian society. It's certainly a good skill to have, but not the end of the world if you can't read.

It's an asset greatly enhances productivity and market activity. A society that tries to suppress literacy in some manner will not long compete with a more literate people on the long scale.

>Wrong

How so? A one word rebuttal is not an argument that disproves me. If you're too intellectually lazy to make a real counterpoint, then do not reply to my posts. If you want to just go "nyuh-uh" then I'll simply call you a retard and save myself the trouble.

>You think wrong

How so? A one liner is not a refutation that disproves me. It is just laziness on your part and merely false bravado to compensate for not knowing having a counterpoint. Again, I'll just call you a faggot and not bother.

>>87473

Economic forces always win out over cultural institutions either in the sense that the people adapt to the realities described by economics or they suffer the consequences of choosing ignorance or defiance. If the South had chosen to maintain slavery as their birthright and tradition against a world embracing emancipation and the already covered superior efficacy of a labor market, it would have paid the costs. This is no different than suffering the consequences of poor agricultural techniques that ignore crop and climate compatibility or soil health.

You want some proof that stays in the context of white and black relations in Western offshoot societies? After the Civil War in the South, cartels were formed among white farmers specifically to exclude blacks from the marketplace. Ordinances were passed to prevent whites and blacks from shopping at one another's shops. Whites were required to only hire fellow whites for certain jobs. Despite this, all during this period of reconstruction, blacks were being hired to do the same work as whites and crossing into each other's communities even at irregular business hours to buy and sell. When it comes down to it, the seeds have to be planted in time for the rains. The harvest has to be reaped when it's ripe. People needed affordable labor for all of these things and blacks supplied it. The ones who did surpassed the white-only operations because they were getting more work and output accomplished. "The law is an ass" as Dickens wrote, and people will do what they have to for survival and prosperity.

This was also the case of South Africa under apartheid. The law restricted the work that Bantu could do and gave preferential options to Afrikaners, but in reality there were more blacks employed in a more diverse array of jobs under apartheid than under the NCA. The apartheid government, even though it set out to disadvantage blacks for white minority benefit, provided a more stable rule of law that protects free market activity. Again, reality ensued and whites couldn't always find other whites to do the job they needed or at an affordable rate. This meant the blacks willing and able to work found employment whether the racists liked it or not.

Back in America, the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow could not retard emancipated black ascension. Black communities developed an economic base and their children were becoming more educated. In Middle American and Western South cities, blacks were integrating without government sanction or approval. In the early 20th century, working class black neighborhoods enjoyed lower crime rates and more intact families than whites of equivalent means. This pattern continued quite reliably up until around the time of the Great Society and a wave of public assistance programs intended to heal injuries to black Americans caused by institutional oppression. The result was fatherless families, pregnancies out of wedlock, skyrocketing petty and then violent crimes, depleted savings, and educational wash out.

Laws designed by people with callousness or even hatred for blacks could not overturn the rule of the marketplace permitting blacks to carve out independent routes to stability. Laws designed (to a degree) by compassionate people concerned with social justice destroyed blacks like laws meant to exclude and hobble them never could. The purpose in bringing this up is not to insinuate that blacks require white control to prosper but to affirm how intentions mean very little compared to the phenomena of cause and effect. That which we call economics should be the science of understanding this. To attempt to legislate in defiance of known economic forces and behaviors is not unlike attempting to change the speed of light by committee.

>>87529

>The few dramatic slave rebellions

Do you mean cases such as Haiti? I can only think of one slave revolt in Dixie, not counting John Brown (his raid on Harpers Ferry was mostly whites and free blacks).

Murder is not the only form of sabotage

There's a risk and a reward.

>It made their economy far too dependent on a narrow base of exports

Even if we completely ignore the idea of comparative advantage, the south is a big region had other domestic goods such as hemp, tobacco, sugar, cattle, fish, coal, and even gold.

>will not long compete with a more literate people on the long scale

Slavery was never going to make it into the 20th century in the CSA unless they went full isolationist and cut themselves off from the outside world.

>How so

All I'm arguing is that it worked at the time because of the limitations on technology.

>How so

The current slave capital of the world is India, a country that can't even get toilets right. Libya started having open air slave markets after they got destabilized by Clinton.

>>87269

Because their ranks were filled with scrawny white men, while the Union was bolstered by support from virile African stallions gunning for their freedom. Natural selection 101, the physically superior species naturally wins out.

WE

>>87556

>actually, more along the lines of folks putting the perfectly good furniture next to the dumpster

Still dumpster diving is not the best example for a functional economy, if that's the best you've got you're pathetic worthless nigger incapable of producing anything yourself, which is exactly what communists are.

>Mode of manufacture =/= mode of distribution.

And i again repeat that communism has nothing to do with manufacturing, as well as giving the example of the most important communist policies. Communism is not a machinists' manual, it's a political movement, pull your head out of your ass.

>The founder of the USSR thinks the USSR was capitalist.

Or rather it is capitalist since the day it failed to most communists. It odes not change anything. "Not real communism/socialism" has already become a meme because of this.

>"Nonmaterial woo."

What's that supposed to mean? Economy is the way humans organize interaction and operation of real world and its resources. If you're stupid enough to not understand what a "human concept" is, you'd better kill yourself, to ease the life of those around you at least.

>I prefer purely materialist economics.

So i guess you'd prefer not using math as well, as it is not materialistic, right?

>I'm guessing that market anarchism, agorism, market socialism and the like might have something to say about that.

As if i care about a bunch of crap leftist theory that has nothing to do with the real world. Same as any other leftist economic school. Especially since you're known for falsifying even science itself to fit your narrative, take aside human action.

>>87618

>Still dumpster diving is not the best example for a functional economy

I know. That's why they put it next to the dumpster.

>Open access to the means of production has nothing to do with manufacturing.

You might feel differently if you'd ever done something constructive with your life, but whatever.

>All communists are black.

Yep!

>Or rather it is capitalist since the day it failed

I mean, *I* think it failed when Lenin attacked, but…

>Conservation of matter is a human construct.

Sure thing, commander genius.

>So i guess you'd prefer not using math as well, as it is not materialistic, right?

Kinda the opposite. Math is usually more concrete than "the economy isn't physical objects its MY FEELS" you're pushing.

>As if i care about a bunch of crap leftist theory

You… obviously do. You just can't be assed to find out one thing about shit you're blabbing about.

Kind of an awesome board to declare market anarchism as crap leftist theory you don't care about on. Probably true.

>>87647

>That's why they put it next to the dumpster.

So much changed.

>Open access to the means of production has nothing to do with manufacturing.

It does not, you could in theory have this access, but they do not need to be used, it is about access, or rather redistribution of a certain part of factors of production, named by leftists "means" of production, as well as ignoring or outright banning the rest, while forcefully providing access(redistributing) the other, which is exactly my point.

You could even try to create open access machinery yourself, it's not like "evil capitalists" do not allow that, go build or buy some mills and allow access to them. It's just that you are worthless scum incapable of doing even that, so all you can do is rely on stealing and robbery.

>black

Well, you could be white, it does not mean you're any less of a nigger. Ancaps do not usually care much about racial stuff.

>Conservation of matter is a human construct.

Are you really incapable of anything other than strawmanning? Economy is about humans, unless you think of gathering or hunting as of an economy, as it is what animals do.

>Math is usually more concrete than "the economy isn't physical objects its MY FEELS" you're pushing.

Game theory is in the same field as math, which is to say, they are not sciences, yet they are both used as models to describe a variety of different scenarios. If not hardcoded into physical laws = absolutely subjective and idealistic for you then i've got nothing more to say.

>You just can't be assed to find out one thing about shit you're blabbing about.

It's an ancap board, i do not have to care about anything you say, you've got to make an argument to get a reply.

>to declare market anarchism as crap leftist theory

Unless it's free market anarchist it is just another bunch of uneducated kids trying to build another utopia. Amount of idiocy may vary, though how far they are from ancaps and as much they rely on well meaning and devotion of people is directly proportionate to how close to ancoms they are.

>>87649

>So much changed.

Yeah, actually. Deliberately trying to make sure that everyone who wants it can have it changes a lot.

Also…

>means of distribution don't manufacture anything!

t. brainlet.

>It does not, you could in theory have this access, but they do not need to be used, it is about access, or rather redistribution of a certain part of factors of production, named by leftists "means" of production, as well as ignoring or outright banning the rest, while forcefully providing access(redistributing) the other, which is exactly my point.

You DO realize this crap doesn't even parse in english, right? It's as fragmented as the scattered wreckage of your neural tissue.

>so all you can do is rely on stealing and robbery.

…but you just said that access to your former MoP doesn't matter. Can't quite pick ONE story and stick with it in the course of just shouting random bullshit you make up?

>it does not mean you're any less of a nigger. Ancaps do not usually care much about racial stuff.

No, you can't pick one story and stick to it.

>unless you think of gathering or hunting as of an economy

It is absolutely an economy, and if you didn't have such a gross misunderstanding of what is and isn't a physically real object, math, etc, you could figure that out.

>Game theory is in the same field as math, which is to say, they are not sciences

They're not "in the same field," game theory is math, and number theory is a science.

>f not hardcoded into physical laws = absolutely subjective and idealistic for you then i've got nothing more to say.

You could have just typed…

>i've never had anything worth saying.

Saves time.

>t's an ancap board

No, it's not, and there's an image stickied at the top exclusively to tell you fucking retards this.

…but images are like words. Hard.

>i do not have to care about anything you say

Yet you keep spewing completely random shit that doesn't even parse in english half the time. Wierd, huh?

>Unless it's free market anarchist

You're slow as fuck, aren't you?

>though how far they are from ancaps

…if you're the type example, hopefully very far.

>how close to ancoms they are.

…you mean the folks Rothbard chose to hammer out his theory with?

>it is just another bunch of uneducated kids

The irony.

Your forays into economics would do better if you rehabilitated a love for physically-real objects and math. On the other hand, if images and words are hard for you, it's probably a lost cause.

>>87651

>Deliberately trying to make sure that everyone who wants it can have it changes a lot.

Yet it is still the same dumpster diving, you still live on others' trash.

>means of distribution don't manufacture anything!

I said that communism is not about manufacturing, i.e. it's irrelevant. I start to doubt that you're strawmanning because you're a shill, you must be braindead.

>Can't quite pick ONE story

I'll pick all the incorrect points in your silly blabbering, they do not have to happen simultaneously.

>It is absolutely an economy

Well, if you say so. Then i agree with you on the point of communists being on the same level as animals from economic perspective.

>number theory is a science

No it's not. Learn what science is, faggot.

>No, it's not, and there's an image stickied at the top exclusively to tell you fucking retards this.

Just because BO is a huge cuck does not mean that this board is somehow fitted for the filth like you. Go back to leftypol.

>Yet you keep spewing completely random shit

Maybe it's just that you're incapable of reading ant try to compensate it with such blatant strawmanning?

Fuck you, it's not even worth arguing with such a faggot.

>Yet it is still the same dumpster diving, you still live on others' trash.

<gift economies don't exist.

<you're scum because someone GAVE that away!

Just… keep… changing your story.

>I said that communism is not about manufacturing

…and you're still not only completely wrong, but downright nonsensical when you assert that open manufacturing is not manufacturing.

…you're still changing the topic from your pathetic whining about how distribution systems, including gift economies, aren't the same as manufacturing something.

>Learn what science is, faggot.

…hypotheoses can be made for a given axiomatic system and upheld or falsified.

You're the one with the low IQ and shit education, buddy.

>just because BO is a huge cuck does not mean that this board is

It actually determines literally fucking everything about the board.

You're fucking retarded, go home.

>>87655

<gift economies exist as distribution of wastes of more efficient ones

ftfy

>open manufacturing is not manufacturing

Open manufacturing is not communism, it's entirely possible under most regimes. Communism is redistribution of machines, along with other things, to make them open.

You can start arguing any time.

> for a given axiomatic system

So i guess theology is science now

>It actually determines literally fucking everything about the board.

A board is just an name without users

Try harder, autist

>>87656

>A board is just an name without users

>Communism is redistribution of machines

Calling yourself a communist does not make it so.

>>87659

Is that all you've got?

>>87493

>They would have gotten outvoted on all sorts of issues.

And slavery was the one they cared about more than anything else. All other alleged causes of the civil war were averted by bargaining and politics, but slavery was not negotiable.

>They could easily have forced it through by rejoining and then it would have been a huge uphill battle to get a new amendment in undoing the Corwin amendment.

Again, the Corwin amendment didn't go far enough for them.

>So white supremacy is okay when Yankees do it?

Cute whataboutism but you're only kidding yourself. The point isn't that white supremacy is okay when Northerners do it but that the fact that they weren't motivated to maintain the union by egalitarianism has no bearing on the reality that the South seceded to affirm it. Both of these things are capable of existing at the same time and do not overrule each other.

>Most northerners went a step beyond supremacy and wanted blacks out of the country entirely. Lincoln himself believed this up until the final months of his life.

So what? Wanting to kick people out of the country for being black is pretty shitty but it's still leagues beyond keeping them in bondage. At least ethno-nationalism can be non-aggressive. There's nothing non-aggressive about race-based chattel slavery.

>Because they're big government stooges who can't favor anything that goes against the official truth?

Or, y'know, they don't deny reality for the sake of foolish pride. That's kinda important too.

>But war crimes against civilians don't?

Yeah, gonna say that war crimes + preserving the union in a manner that leads to the end of slavery is superior to war crimes + trying to keep slavery in perpetuity. No question.

>The only slavery related difference between the CSA Constitution and the USA Constitution+Corwin amendment was whether slavery was extended by default

Wrong. The CSA Constitution prevented the states from outlawing the slave trade even if they individually wanted to (like Texas probably would have done). So much for "muh states' rights." It prevented the passage of any law by the CSA Congress forbidding the right to own slaves. So much for "muh more important economic matters." It ADDED an affirmation that slaveholders had the right to take their slaves anywhere in the CSA they wanted without interference from state or local laws.

>You really expect people to believe that one factor outweighs all the changes relating to state sovereignty, free trade, and limited central government?

I don't expect lying Confederate apologists to acknowledge reality, no, but I do expect thinking humans to "believe" in the truth, yes. The CSA Constitution TOOK AWAY the states' rights to trade freely among themselves without federal oversight, denied them self-determination on slavery, and provided for them who they could call citizens affirming that CSA citizenship outranked state citizenship. So much for a less centralized government. All they gained in return was to collect taxes and make bilateral agreements on use of rivers and ports, the ability to impeach low-ranking CSA officials, and the ability to issue a subordinate currency. Meanwhile, all of the those ebil Anti-Constitutional things that Lincoln did weren't fixed by the Confederate law. They left it intact so they could suppress their own rebellion if need be. "Fine for thee but nor for me" was the Southern motto on states' rights.

>>87704

>Never mind the upcoming Morrill tariff that represented a 70% increase (ignoring the further wartime increases that stuck around for decades after the war)

Never mind that ever states' declaration of secession and the minutes of their commissioners featured prominently the right to own slaves prominently in greater detail and frequency than anything related to taxes.

>It was an important part of the republican party platform, and something southern democrats had always been opposed to

Taxes cuts for billionaires and "smol gubernment" has also been something that Republican politicians today traditionally crooned over until Trump slapped them upside the skull by affirming that normal working Americans couldn't care less. The average Southern citizen gave about as much of a fuck but mention the apocalyptic scenario of freedman running wild without a whip hand to keep them from raping and looting and then you have causus belli.

>So it's okay for the north to use it on themselves? They sure hated slavery, but loved the money made off of it.

<b-b-b-buh WHAT ABOUT WHAT ABOUT WHAT ABOUT FFFFFF-FF-FFF-FREEEEE-RREEEER-REEE-REEEEEEEE!

Fuck off. Affirming the immorality of Southern slavery is not, has never been, and never will be a de facto pardoning of anything shitty the North did. Once more: The fact that the North did not go to war to end slavery does not change the FACT that the South went to war to preserve it. The former does not invalidate the latter and is perfectly compatible.

>Enlighten me. Why is the previous founding document relevant here?

Confederate apologists often claim that the CSA was trying to go back to the system established by the Articles of Confederation as a point that the war was about federalism and not slavery. Too bad for them there's zero proof of the former and mountains of proof for the later.

>Lincoln's (entirely bullshit) argument was that they never left the union.

I don't care. I'm not Lincoln and not making his arguments.

>Maybe the north should have gotten its own house in order and abolished slavery for themselves before coming down south.

The South would have freaked out at that and seceded to protect slavery before the abolition bug spread to them. Also they weren't going to war to stop slavery in the South so there's no hypocrisy in not ending it in loyalist slave states first.

>Then why'd they limit what the central government could do, limit how it could raise funds, and reserve more powers for the states

Keep gaslighting. Anybody can look up the Confederate Constitution and the actual history of the CSA Congress taking more and more authority over state actions during the war to immediately know you're full of shit.

>And then getting blown off by Hamiltonian traitors who mutter some half-assed excuse about interstate commerce or necessary and proper powers.

Which the CSA Constitution didn't fix. Because the Cuckfederate traitors weren't concerned about interstate commerce and necessary and proper powers except where it concerned slaves.

>So an export driven economy that can't export things will just keep trucking along like nothing has changed?

People are irrational. A lot of Confederates thought they could invade former and contemporary Spanish territories and expand their huhwhite empire. There absolutely would have been resistance to abolition in the South on the basis of tradition and culture no matter the dollars and cents until they were reduced to a worthless rump state.

>anti-cronyist

*ignores crony articles in CSA Constitution to monopolize the slave trade

>*ignores northern robber barons and corruption*

<le bad thing in North excuses bad thing in South hehehee tit for tat whatabout whatabout whatbout huuuuuuurrr

>What about forcibly deporting them all because they're taking your jobs?

Physical removal isn't a kind thing to do but it's still a fuckton better than relegation to a slave caste.

>>87494

>Where do you think you are

Allegedly a place where people care about human freedom but where autistic snek posters defend a slave state's cause. Also a place where boomers think using "Roooo!" to mock somebody on an image board doesn't automatically out them. Hang yourself.

>>87704

>And slavery was the one they cared about more than anything else

not that much more.

>the Corwin amendment didn't go far enough for them

or maybe there were other factors at play in their decisions.

>motivated to maintain the union by egalitarianism

It isn't just that they didn't care about the human rights of the slaves, it's that everything they did was to make lodsa emone off of southern tariffs.

>race-based

There were black slave owners. The first man to own a chattel slave in America was a former indentured servant from Angola.

>war crimes + trying to keep slavery in perpetuity

Are you seriously trying to equate bushwhackers with no connection to the CSA government with officially sanctioned actions that destroyed multiple states?

>The CSA Constitution prevented the states from outlawing the slave trade even if they individually wanted to

And that would have been interpreted to mean the federal government can't ban it when trade partners got tired of slavery.

>The CSA Constitution TOOK AWAY the states' rights to trade freely among themselves

Gonna need a citation before I believe that one, buddy.

>So much for a less centralized government

yeah sure, completely ignore the edited preamble that preemptively took away the argument that American nationalists had historically used to justify their attacks on state's rights by saying that each state was acting in its "sovereign and independent character" when ratifying and joining the Confederate States.

>All they gained in return

You left out the presidential term limits, the line item veto, the fact that any 3 states could propose an amendment, and the strict limits on what internal improvements the government was allowed to undertake (maintaining existing waterways and collecting a duty on their use).

>the ability to impeach low-ranking CSA officials

This one is way bigger than you make it out to be.

>"Fine for thee but nor for me" was the Southern motto on states' rights

Funny that you act like this is a confederate thing when it's the Yankees that turned around and when from being all for states rights during the war of 1812 to Hamiltonian nationalists a few decades later when they were in power.

>in greater detail and frequency than anything related to taxes

Because the Morrill Tariff wasn't in effect yet.

>Taxes cuts for billionaires and "smol gubernment" has also been something that Republican politicians today traditionally crooned over until Trump slapped them upside the skull

The original GOP was not small government by any stretch of the imagination.

>the South went to war to preserve it

The facts? The facts of the matter are that they had every right to secede and that they tried to do it peacefully.

>Too bad for them there's zero proof of the former

Except for all the state sovereignty related changes I mentioned already and you brushed off.

>The South would have freaked out at that and seceded to protect slavery before the abolition bug spread to them

I was talking about the border states that got to keep their slaves all throughout the war.

>Cuckfederate traitors

There was no treason on the part of the Confederacy.

>to monopolize the slave trade

The closest thing to this in the confederate constitution is a ban on importing new slaves from Africa.

>>87705

>boomers

>being pro-CSA

>being even remotely Ancap

If you're going to be an impotent spastic, at least try to be accurate with your insults. Why are you on the Internet anyways? The electricity used to supply you with it is made from all that evil burning of coal and natural gas, shouldn't you be in a commune with your treehugger friends instead of shitposting on a Canadian footmassage website? Oh that's right, you're a faggot LARPer that doesn't give actually give a shit about conserving the wilderness, and just virtue-signal about it on your Facebook profile.

>>87715

>not that much more.

Yes "that much more." Absolutely "that much more." Irrefutably "that much more." So much "that much more" that it's cited in the declarations of secession, documents of commissioners, and friendly organs of the Southern press far more often than any other factors you pretend held a candle to slavery.

>or maybe there were other factors at play

Not nearly as important to them. Slavery was the be all end all and I've already linked sources outlining how this was the case (which you have yet to refute).

>it's that everything they did was to make lodsa emone off the southern tariffs

The North having selfish or questionable motives, once again, does not change the reality that the South seceded to protect slavery as their peculiar institution far and above beyond any other concern.

>There were black slave owners

That does not mean the system was not race-based. Only black Africans could be enslaved. You would never see a black man with a white slave. Maybe a free black could have had a white indentured servant way back in the colonial era, but it's tremendously dishonest to pretend that the Southern slave system wasn't invested in racial hierarchy.

>Are you seriously trying to equate bushwhackers with no connection to the CSA government

<Dems gud boiz dey dindu nuffin

>And that would have been interpreted to mean the federal government can't ban it when trade partners got tired of slavery.

Your speculation. Desperate, sweaty, wildly gesticulating speculation. Meanwhile what we have to make judgements on are what the letter of the law actually said, which was that slavery was there to stay and not going anywhere even if a member state wanted to phase it out.

>Gonna need a citation before I believe that one, buddy.

Here, faggot: Article I Section 9 Paragraph 6 "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses." Which absolutely would have been used. So you're wrong. Again.

>yeah sure, completely ignore the edited preamble

I will, thank you. Actions speak louder than words even on paper. But, y'know, continue to deny reality.

>This one is way bigger than you make it out to be.

Bullshit.

>Funny that you act like this is a confederate thing

Cuz it was. Again, I don't care about your desperate sophistry and whataboutism about how awful the North is.

>Because the Morrill Tariff wasn't in effect yet.

It wouldn't have needed to be if taxes and tariffs were half as important as maintaining slavery. As you yourself admitted, the North offered compromises to keep slavery legal but the mere threat it would eventually be strangled off by containment was enough to spur secession to preserve it.

>The original GOP was not small government by any stretch of the imagination.

Not the point, though nice attempt at a red herring. Point is that what politicians and parties play up in their rhetoric isn't always what their constituents actually give a fuck about. The average Southerner was much more worried about what free slaves would allegedly do to white society than he was about paying more at the market for some French made widget.

>>87830

>The facts? The facts of the matter are that they had every right to secede and that they tried to do it peacefully.

1.) Fuck any so-called "right" to preserve human bondage. I don't care about your "rights" at that point. A revolution carried out to perpetuate slavery, however legally valid, morally deserves to be stamped down by a vicious jack boot. I don't care if that wasn't the North's goal, it's still a good thing that it ended up accomplishing that.

2.) The right of a state to secede is still hotly debated by people who understand the matter far more than either of us

3.) They had no delusion about it being a peaceful process. They wouldn't have fired first on Northern ships if that had been the case.

>Except for all the state sovereignty related changes I mentioned already and you brushed off

I notice you haven't responded to any of the well documented citations of Confederate states going to war to perpetuate slavery.

>I was talking about the border states that got to keep their slaves all throughout the war

You argued that the North should have gotten its house in order and abolished slavery for itself first. I'm saying that only would have panicked the South more because they were fearing a domino effect whereby the Republican plan to restrict slavery to no further than where it had spread would eventually lead to outlawing slavery. Southern papers were already publishing editorials that trend of abolition and restrictions in the North were reason for the South to get out while the getting was good.

>There was no treason on part of the Confederacy

Incorrect: In Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, treason is specifically limited to levying war against the US, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

That's literal, defined treason that the Confederacy was guilty of doing. Your notion of Hamiltonian treason, meanwhile, is just hurting your fee fees.

>>87716

The South is lousy with Neo-Confederate Boomers and An-Caps are not a young and vibrant community.

>impotent spastic

Keep projecting, chucklefuck. I'm not the one pretending to care about liberty while arguing for the Confederates.

>The electricity used to supply you with it is made from all that evil burning of coal and natural gas

<Those miners wouldn't have clothes if they couldn't buy them from the company store. How can they say they're against exploitation?

Fag.

>>87446

>bullshit claim out of thin air that slavery was "economically nonviable" and would have magically disappeared anyhow.

If it were economically viable, it would not require a state to prop it up.

https://mises.org/library/nationalized-slavery-fugitive-slave-law

>>87834

>Then why was the number of secessionist states almost doubled by Lincoln's calls for an army to invade the CSA?

This has nothing to do with the motive for secession. Once again, the reasons are clearly spelled out in these states' declarations which all spend the most ink and feature most prominently of any single enumeration of grievances the threat of ending negro slavery and its implications for white civilization.

>yes it does.

No.

Point to me a single case of a white man being enslaved to a black man or a white being allowed to own another white as a slave in the post-American Revolution antebellum South.

Ah right. You can't because you think confidently asserting "yuh-huh" will change reality and fool anyone but yourself. Just like every other Confederate apologist ever.

>Fact based, entirely reasonable speculation

If you enjoy cherry-picking, making shit up wholesale, and have an unhealthy fixation on alt-history web fiction.

>Interstate commerce was already under the jurisdiction of the central government in the US Constitution

Which the Confederate government expanded rather than diminished.

>They would have been outvoted on other issues as well if the north got to influence the new territories.

And yet by the time of secession slavery was the only thing they spent any amount of time talking about. Even the other issues apologists offer were connected by Confederates themselves back to slavery! Every mention of states' rights affirmed that this included quite importantly their right to own slaves. There was no effort in any state convention on secession to separate states' rights from slavery; they were viewed as one in the same. The only contemporary Confederate who downplayed it was Jefferson Davis when he was trying to solicit empathy Europe. Calhoun, who led the effort to nullify tariffs in the South, articulated that the tariff issue was related to the slave question, and tariffs were not discussed widely in pamphlets or newspapers by the time of the war.

>Lysander Spooner would beg to differ

Fuck him. "Famous historical dude said thing" doesn't make it moral or correct.

>The ends don't justify the means

Those means justified those ends. I won't cry over the deaths of even hundreds of thousands of traitors if it means 4 million people, their children, and probably their grand and great grandchildren are spared the monstrous, brutal, and intolerable perpetuation of slavery. Anyone who fought for a cause that listed in black and white on paper in ANY capacity the right to keep that system alive came as close as it gets in the real world to being a comic book villain fighting for the forces of evil and deserved what they got.

>It's brushed off by the powers that be because both sides know damn well that it exists.

LOL "IT'S A CONSPIRACY REEEEE." No, it is discussed in good faith by people with different views of the Civil War because its existence is not at all plain or obvious and probably never will be. The rest of the world outside of a pissant minority of Noe-Confederates has regardless accepted the matter as settled by way of the war and moved the fuck on. Even in the South. Fuck, even in South Carolina.

>They tried

Even Lincoln being elected was enough. Seven of the states had already declared secession before he was in office. They didn't want "The Black Republican Party" taking away their slave plantations.

>The use of plural language is more important than you think.

Semantics. More desperate sophistry. Keep flailing.

>>87839

>This has nothing to do with the motive for secession

Yes it does.

>If you enjoy cherry-picking, making shit up wholesale

no u

>Which the Confederate government expanded rather than diminished

They expanded it on the side of enforcing free trade between member states.

>There was no effort in any state convention on secession to separate states' rights from slavery; they were viewed as one in the same

Slavery was a state's right at the time. There were others.

>Fuck him

rude tbh

>I won't cry over the deaths of even hundreds of thousands of traitors

They weren't traitors. The north didn't even try to prosecute people for treason after the war because they knew it was a sham.

>because its existence is not at all plain or obvious and probably never will be

Wrong.

>accepted the matter as settled by way of the war

You're not trying to say that might makes right here, are you?

>Semantics

>More desperate sophistry

>Keep flailing

no u

>>87269

Because they were inbred retards.

>>87841

good post

>>87840

>Yes it does.

Nope. Try again.

>no u

Wrong

>They expanded it on the side of enforcing free trade between member states.

Opposite of a fact.

>Slavery was a state's right at the time. There were others.

Slavery was never a right. It was the violation of a right. Everything else was secondary.

>They weren't traitors

Yes, they were.

>The north didn't even try to prosecute people for treason after the war because they knew it was a sham

They were tired of a Civil War and wanted to put everything behind them even though forgiving Southern malfeasance so readily and not being more heavy handed during Reconstruction only made things more unjust in the South for another 100 years for blacks.

>Wrong

Nope.

>You're not trying to say that might makes right here, are you?

Violence was the only thing the traitors were going to understand. Nuff said.

>no u

Wrong

>>87841

Right

>>88301

This, but ironically.

>>88301

>Slavery was never a right. It was the violation of a right. Everything else was secondary.

>slave trade could not be banned until 1808 under the US Constitution

>>88301

>Try again

>Wrong

>Opposite of a fact

no u

>Slavery was never a right

*Not a natural right. It was protected under the Constitution.

>Yes, they were

No they weren't.

>wanted to put everything behind them

They wanted to put everything behind them because it would end badly for them if people started asking questions like whether the federal government can actually coerce states into staying in the union.

>only made things more unjust in the South for another 100 years for blacks

Take a good hard look at the Illinois black codes and tell me northerners cared about the human rights of slaves.

>Nope

no u

>Violence was the only thing the traitors were going to understand

I agree. Secession had to be enforced through violence because the north refused to recognize southern independence.

>Wrong

no u

>Right

Wrong.

>>89078

<Rights come from the government

Cuck.

>>89084

>no u

Incorrect

>Not a natural right. It was protected by the Constitution

Meaning not a right at all but a violation of a natural right enshrined by in illegitimate law. Or I guess our rights come from the state now.

>No they weren't

Yes they were.

>They wanted to put everything behind them because it would end badly for them if people started asking questions like whether the federal government can actually coerce states into staying in the union

They included the defeated South too. No, they wanted to put the war and its internecine animosity behind them, and they were willing to look the other way to what happened to free blacks to an appalling degree to facilitate that "healing." It's one of America's failures.

>Take a good hard look at the Illinois black codes and tell me northerners cared about the human rights of slaves

Irrelevant. Distraction. Red Herring. Once again, and again, and again and again and again, the fact that the North was not battling for slaves' human rights does not now, has not ever, nor will ever at any point in the future change that the South's reason for secession was continue to abuse said human rights. The Norths' motives and record simply do not factor into it. You are mumbling whataboutism and you are only kidding yourself.

I also love how you think you're pointing something relevant and new out when the phrase you're quoting was used to criticize the North for abandoning black rights. You can't defend the Lost Cause on its own merits so you have to just keep trying to tear down the North, and it just plain doesn't work out for you. It's kinda sad.

>no u

Nope

>I agree. Secession had to be enforced through violence because the north refused to recognize southern independence.

Incorrect. Secession was pressed with violence because the South would not brook even a potential threat to the preservation of slavery. Their numerous acts of violent treason even before Ft. Sumter are proof.

>no u

Wrong

>Wrong

He's right, and you are ably proving him so all throughout this thread. Sad!

>>87269

58 years growing up in FL. and I was 40 before I really knew, fucking slaves and the way money was handled dealing with slave type properties, I fucking feel like some ape. :(

>>89189

>Incorrect

Wrong.

>Or I guess our rights come from the state now

I never said that.

>Yes they were

no they weren't.

>and they were willing to look the other way to what happened to free blacks

They were passing the exact same laws to control and oppress free blacks in their states long before the civil war.

>Irrelevant

>Distraction

>Red Herring

No, no and no.

>The Norths' motives and record simply do not factor into it

>the motives of the victors don't matter because even skimming over them hurts my feelings

What a fucking pussy.

>Nope

Wrong.

>Their numerous acts of violent treason even before Ft. Sumter are proof

Such as?

>Wrong

Go chug drain cleaner.

>and you are ably proving him so all throughout this thread

You must be looking at a different thread.

>>89189

>the South's reason for secession was continue to abuse said human rights

Did you not watch the video I uploaded here:

>>89064

>>89198

>Wrong

Right

>I never said that

Yes, you did.

>They were passing the same laws to control and oppress free blacks in their states long before the civil war

Irrelevant

>No, no, and no

Yes, yes, and yes

<HURF DERF MUH FEELS PUSSAY

Imagine being such a brainlet that you can't understand how the motives of the victor don't have a necessary bearing on the motives of the loser so you resort to "muh dick" tier swagger. I guess it comes with the territory of being a Cuckfederate. Can't follow basic logic. Can't debate worth shit. Just can't do anything right at all.

>Wrong

Nope.

>Such as?

December 30, 1860: Federal arsenal in Charleston seized

January 2, 1861: Fort Johnson seized; Fort Pulaski seized

January 4, 1861: Arsenal in Mobile seized January 9, 1861: Star of the West fired upon January 10, 1861: Arsenals and forts in Louisiana seized January 11

January 13, 1861: Pensacola seized

January 18, 1861: Steamer A. O. Tyler fired upon at Vicksburg; Mississippi blockaded January 26, 1861: New Orleans Mint and coinage seized

January 31, 1861: New Orleans Customs House and funds seized

February 18, 1861: General Twiggs compelled to surrender all US property in Texas and evacuate the state.

February 28, 1861: Provisional Army of the Confederate States formed; CS Congress calls for 100,000 volunteers for one year

April 3, 1861: Schooner Rhoda Johnson fired upon

>Go chug drain cleaner

I'd tell you rinse your mouth with buckshot but you'd probably fail at that too.

>You must be looking at a different thread.

Naw.

>>89218

>Watching some uneducated, unqualified, uninformed neckbeard spout counterfactual apologia when he should stick to whining about how feminists are ruining his sci-fi childhood.

No.

>>87373

>Allowing people to fling shit at each other and do whatever they want will devolve this place into /b/

/b/ became shit when free discussion was censored, not because it was allowed. One (((side))) got allowed free reign to ban those who stepped outside the lines, and the rest is history.

>>89223

>Right

Wrong.

>Yes, you did

Nope.

>Irrelevant

Relevant.

>Yes, yes, and yes

No, no, and no.

>Imagine being such a brainlet that you can't understand how the motives of the victor don't have a necessary bearing on the motives of the loser

Imagine your cause being so morally bankrupt that you have to completely ignore the historical motives behind it.

>Nope

Wrong.

>December 30, 1860: Federal arsenal in Charleston seized

>January 2, 1861: Fort Johnson seized; Fort Pulaski seized

>January 4, 1861: Arsenal in Mobile seized

All of these had become foreign installations in a sovereign country's territory.

>January 9, 1861: Star of the West fired upon

For attempting to reinforce and arm the men in Fort Sumter.

>January 10, 1861: Arsenals and forts in Louisiana seized January 11

>January 13, 1861: Pensacola seized

>January 26, 1861: New Orleans Mint and coinage seized

>January 31, 1861: New Orleans Customs House and funds seized

See above.

>February 18, 1861: General Twiggs compelled to surrender all US property in Texas and evacuate the state.

"Compelled".

>February 28, 1861: Provisional Army of the Confederate States formed; CS Congress calls for 100,000 volunteers for one year

To defend themselves from northern aggression.

>I'd tell you rinse your mouth with buckshot but you'd probably fail at that too

no u

>Naw.

ok retard

>No

He hasn't been drinking the unionist kool aid, so he's infinitely more qualified than you are.

>>89226

/b/'s charm was that it was off-topic, when the shitty attention-whoring mods came, they became the topic, and that's what turned the board to shit.

This place needs to be on topic, and allowing commies to post on a capitalist board just because they say that they want freedom (never mind that their ideology is as far from free as you can get), is the same as allowing people to post movies on an anime board just because they both watch them on a TV.

It's extremely disappointing that this kind of cucked libertarianism has found its way here. You might as well let a pack of niggers fuck your wife since apparently it's the libertarian thing to do.

>>89223

>Watching some uneducated, unqualified, uninformed neckbeard spout counterfactual apologia

But that is not what is in the video.

>>89246

>>89226

/b/ was never not shit. Everything of value attributed to /b/ was pilfered from objectively superior on-topic interest boards each of whom despised /b/ and rightly regarded it as an onsite asylum for newfags and underage.

>>89242

>Wrong

Incorrect

>Nope

Yep

>Relevant

Nope

>No, no, and no

Wrong, wrong, and wrong

>Imagine your cause being so morally bankrupt that you have to completely ignore the historical motives behind it.

<Muh fee feez

Ignoring them is correct because they have no logical bearing on the topic. Go feelmonger elsewhere, perpetual loser.

>Wrong

Right, as a matter of fact.

>All of these had become foreign installations in a sovereign country's territory.

Why? Because a pack of cowardly traitors said so? Nnnnnope!

>For attempting to reinforce and arm the men in Fort Sumter.

Which the union military had every right to do, period.

>See above

More fractal wrongness, eh? Predictable.

>"Compelled"

Correct.

>northern aggression

HAHAHAHAHAHA

>no u

Keep failing.

>ok retard

That all you got, huh? Southern apologists just can't stop embarrassing themselves. Must have something to do with being replaceable to everyone they care about.

>He hasn't been drinking the unionist kool aid, so he's infinitely more qualified than you are.

<He hasn't embraced thoroughly debunked and mendacious secessionist revisionism, therefore he's magically NOT retarded

You're assessment of qualifications operates as an inverse barometer. Keep flailing for my amusement, though.

>>89258

Yes it is.

>>89262

>Incorrect

Nope.

>Yep

Wrong.

>Nope

Wrong.

>Wrong, wrong, and wrong

Right, right, and right.

>because they have no logical bearing on the topic

Yes they do you fucking retard.

>Right, as a matter of fact

Wrong, as a matter of fact.

>Why

Because they had seceded.

>Which the union military had every right to do

Nope.

>More fractal wrongness, eh

no u

>Correct

Incorrect. He voluntarily surrendered because he was a Georgian. Like Lee and many other confederates, he didn't wish to lead an army for the purpose of invading his home state.

>it's not aggression to send an army of 75,000 to invade another country for having the audacity to not pay taxes to you

But those confederates started it by using the bare minimum of force to assert their independence, Right?

>Keep failing

no u

>That all you got, huh

It's all I need.

>thoroughly debunked

wew

>You're (sic) assessment of qualifications operates as an inverse barometer

no u

>Yes it is

Nope.

>>89273

>Nope

Wrong

>Wrong

Right

>Right, right, and right

Nope, nope, and nnnnope!

>Yes they do you fucking retard

If you're retarded (and you are) sure.

>Wrong, as a matter of fact

LOL! Nope!

>Because they had seceded

Who cares?

>Nope

Wrong

>no u

I'm right tho

>Incorrect. He voluntarily surrendered because he was a Georgian.

Sure thing, kiddo. Whatever you say.

>Like Lee and many other confederates, he didn't wish to lead an army for the purpose of invading his home state.

So a traitor. Gotcha.

>no u

Still failing! It really is a Southern tradition.

>It's all I need

You need an exit bag

>wew

You got nothin'

>no u

See above

>Nope

It is, tho

>>89258

Proof? As you stated, you have not seen the video, so you do not know what is in it.

sic semper tyrannis

>>89305

Lincoln was Hitler's favorite president.

>>89305

Hitler was ancap.

>>87269

Because they were against liberty. Therefore, they were against /liberty/