Civil War & More, Part 4

2008-2-12 03:29:00

Blayne writes:

"This is just more speculation on your part and only emphasizes your personal bias against Ron Paul and has no relation to what he would have done. It really has no bearing and is another straw man created to avoid the real issue."

JJ:

Why do you get so upset when I give my opinion on something? It's a free country. And yes I have read his opinion of World War II. Almost all the current peace activists think they would have supported the war, but my opinion is that few would have.

By the way you were going to direct me to his five point plan. I couldn't find it on the site you sent me to.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"If Iraq is an illegal war, in your opinion, then Afghanistan should be also as they did not attack us and are a sovereign nation etc. It appears that Paul went against his own philosophy in voting for that."

Blayne:

"Once again you are misinformed. He authorized force to go after Bin Laden who was holding up Afghanistan. When the Taliban refused to hand him over they were obviously harboring him therefore were complicit. But Bush let him slip away when he refocused on Iraq (which by the way was planned in 1997) and turned it over to Pakistan whose military were largely sympathetic to Bin Laden and let him get away. We were also invited to Afghanistan by the northern Alliance, as there were no clear rulers of the whole of Afghanistan at the time."

JJ:

That's like saying the Kurds invited us into Iraq so the invasion was OK. If it was all right to go after the bad guys in Afghanistan when it was controlled by the Taliban then it was just as all right to go into Iraq when it was controlled by the Sunnis. Ron Paul is wanting it both ways in saying the first invasion was OK and the second was reprehensible.

Blayne:

"Ron Paul has said we need to leave Iraq and refocus on getting those responsible for 9/11. Starting with Bin Laden."

JJ:

If we left Iraq we wouldn't send those forces to capture Bin Laden. We've got the appropriate forces on the trail now. There's only so much energy that is feasible to expend in going after one man. That is like saying we should have dropped the war against Japan and went after Hitler. We were already after Hitler with the appropriate force.

Blayne:

"But hey if we do that and capture Bin Laden then we would have no excuse to perpetuate the so-called war on terror, which is really the war on civil liberties. No one else seems to care."

JJ:

If we captured Osama bin Laden the war on terror would not end. We will always have to give the subjugation of terrorists various degrees of attention depending on the circumstances.

Sorry, I don't see a war on civil liberties through the current war on terror. It's hard to be worked up about it when there's only about one chance in ten million that anyone I know will be affected by it. But there is over a 50/50 chance that we will all be adversely effected by terrorism. The advance of socialism is where the real threat to freedom is and Ron Paul is supposed to be against this, but he puts all his attention on the small things that have almost no chance of hurting us - but instead are designed to insure liberty.

JJ:

Let me repeat. We only obtained independence here because the situation of the colonists allowed for a lot of individual freedom. A country such as North Korea is too suffocated to produce people like Patrick Henry and need help.

Blayne:

"Then why are we not invading North Korea?"

JJ:

I've already answered this. Why do you keep asking questions that cause me to repeat myself on various subjects? I hope you are reading my posts.

Blayne:

"North and South Korea are now talking and trading and building a railroad between them to facilitate trade and eventually reunification. Shall we invade to free the North Korean people and destroy all that progress? Perhaps if we hadn't used sanctions on them starved their people and traded with them they might have eased up sooner and moved toward freer markets, etc."

JJ:

But there is no talk of giving the people any more freedom and many are still starving and eating tree bark to survive. We have helped them by giving them food but it didn't go to the starving people but to the military.

China has no economic sanctions against them and other nations help them and give them food and supplies and still their people starve because of the ineffective tyranny. We at least need a plan to stimulate change there.

Let me clarify something here. One of my key teachings and the subject of a whole book I have written is judgement. There is no predetermined black and white solution to every problem. Sometimes, as in there case of Hitler, for example, a military conflict is the only answer. Other times such as with the Soviet Union a financial conquest will do the trick. Just because I agree with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq does not mean that I think that one solution fits all when circumstances are different everywhere.

Blayne:

"The Good Samaritan parable and the rape analogy are not accurate. An accurate analogy would be if you witnessed a rape, however in order to stop it you had to give up your freedom, bankrupt your neighborhood, and cause the death of the family and friends of the rape victim to save her."

JJ:

I think my analogy was accurate. When there is a tyranny the people that are being raped is the whole nation. To save the nation from rape you deal with that nation alone and you do not give to destroy neighboring countries and peoples. There will be danger of damage to the country itself.

If you come across a woman being raped and attempt to save her you are putting her and yourself as well as the rapist at risk. Even so, the woman will want your help and appreciate your efforts. There is no way that it is not the right thing to do to stop a rapist by what ever means necessary.

It is never wrong to free a person, people or country from real tyranny if it is feasible to do so.

Now we can't stop all the rapists in the world and it is not practical to go on an individual campaign to find them but if we have the obvious opportunity to help them it is the right thing to do to save the woman.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"I would certainly prefer to live there now than under Saddam Hussein, wouldn't you? Isn't freedom worth a little danger? Under that tyrant you even had to be careful what you said around your own wife and kids for if the wrong word got out you could be imprisoned or tortured -- and I'm talking about real torture.

"I the meantime violence is down 60 percent compared to last year. It would be silly to pull out just before we see the fruits of success."

Blayne then writes:

"My neighbor has served two tours in Iraq and is preparing for a 3rd as we speak he would beg to differ with you."

JJ:

I don't see anyone saying that violence is not down. It's pretty much a proven black and white fact.

Blayne:

"Also you might ask yourself why Ron Paul receives more donations to his campaign from active duty military then all other candidates combined. Also why are suicide rates at all times highs among active duty military serving in Iraq? Gee you think they might know something we don't? People don't like venturing out of the green zone in Iraq for a reason."

JJ:

Here's some hard facts.. A recent survey of active military reveals that 46.1 percent of them believe we should have gone to war with Iraq. 34.2 percent say we shouldn't have. The rest have no opinion.

61.5 percent believe we are somewhat or very likely to succeed.

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2007activepoll_iraq.php

Obviously there is a dissatisfied minority and I would guess that these are the Ron Paul supporters. I feel for all the military that are over there and am sure that all of them want to come home as soon as possible even if they agree with the mission. I would hope that within a year it will be safe to bring many of the troops home.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"It didn't work in Vietnam. We withdrew and over two million deaths followed."

Blayne then writes:

"So you don't think we should not have left Vietnam and perhaps stayed another 100 years perhaps?"

JJ:

Wow! What a giant leap of a conclusion. I don't think we should have went in there to begin with as it was a civil war where the opposition had the support of the Soviets and Chinese. I think we should have supported the South the way we did Afghanistan against the Soviets but the risk was too high to send in 500,000 troops as we did. We accomplished in two weeks in Iraq with a quarter of the troops what we did not do in ten years in Vietnam. Can you imagine how difficult it would have been to occupy all of Vietnam if we had won?

Even so after we were involved the war was mismanaged about ten times worse than Iraq was and a sudden pull out and taking support away from the South with the loss of millions of lives reveals the fallacy of a Ron Paul type pull out.

North Vietnam officers admit we could have easily won the war if we had fought the war with more consistent offense or just continued a while longer. We could have gotten out of there without losing two million lives and additional millions to reeducation camps.

A different judgement call is needed for each threat to freedom that surfaces. A one size fits all doesn't cut the mustard. Too many people have a black and white predetermined approach to problems and such an approach cannot be depended on.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"I'm sure we could do more to spur them to action but in setting a deadline we are also telling the enemies that all they have to do is wait six months and then mount a major offensive."

Blayne:

"Al-Qaeda is only about a thousand people if even that anymore in Iraq. The Sunnis and Al Sadr have turned against them. There will be no major offensive they do not have the manpower. What is more likely is a civil war, however that is likely whether we leave in six months or ten years no matter what we do. Those people have been at it for centuries. Time to come home we can't afford to be there and are putting ourselves at great risk to our economy, our national defense, and civil liberties by remaining."

JJ:

There was no civil war under Saddam Hussein. This was because of his iron rule. But the same stability can be established through the rule of law. It just takes a while longer but is also longer lasting. The chances of a civil war are much less than before as opposing sides are starting to work together for the good of the country. Yes, the war is expensive but it is worth the cost of a little more effort to produce lasting results which could prevent numerous more expensive wars in the Middle East in the future.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"And they are making this change for no reason? Of course not. The reason is the support they get from the U.S. and the realization that we are not the enemy. There is now much more cooperation with U.S. troops than before. You really seem bent on not giving any credit to the efforts of our own country."

Blayne then writes:

"Again my neighbor would beg to differ. Al Sadar has never cooperated with US troops, and the Sunnis are former Saddam troops and have no love for US troops."

JJ:

It's the people themselves that are cooperating more with U.S. troops and turning against the militias. The lack of support from his own people is a major reason that Al Sadar called a truce for six months. Because the people are enjoying a reduction in violence it is unlikely he will be able to gather the forces of resistance he had before. Progress is being made, but this is denied by those with a political agenda. But sooner or later the success will have to be acknowledged and the troops will be given the credit they deserve.

Yes, on hindsight we could have always done better. Even in World War II we made some outrageous mistakes but if the end goal is reached it will be well worth the effort.

Blayne:

"Lincoln was destroying the Constitution. The South had seceded; he destroyed the Constitution by going to war against a sovereign nation when he had no authority via to the Constitution."

JJ:

He did have authority and he used that authority and he did not destroy the Constitution.

Blayne:

"And they were not threat to the US."

JJ:

Because of slavery they were a threat to the entire world.

Blayne:

"Your argument is he had the moral right to ignore the Constitution because of slavery."

JJ:

That is not my argument. He never ignored the Constitution.

Blayne:

"Even though he stated his aim was not to free the slaves therefore your moral argument is now gone because he did not go to war on moral grounds."

JJ:

Not so. Just before the war he said that the only possible way to avoid war is "upon the consent of this government to the erection of a foreign slave government out of the present slave states.... I see the duty revolving upon me."

He saw that the only way to prevent a slave state was to do what is necessary to prevent a slave state. I quoted this in my last post. Perhaps you missed it.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"There's no assumption need here. Lincoln expressed a desire many times in support of freedom for all humans and freedom for the slaves was even part of the Republican platform in 1864."

Blayne then writes:

"Once again actions speak much louder then words although Lincoln's own words that he could care less about the slaves also reveal his true motives."

JJ:

You keep saying this over and over and I correct you over and over. Let me repeat. Lincoln NEVER said he could care less about the slaves. Why do you distort the words of a great man?

Blayne:

"That fact that he contradicts himself in other word only speaks to his being a slimy politician that changes his words to whichever way the wind is blowing."

JJ:

I think he was the most consistent politician that ever lived. You have no case if you stick to quoting his actual words in context. If you just throw out "Lincoln said" and then add your own words you can make him or even Jesus sound like a villain.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"Those Confederate endorsed Southern supremacy books you're reading aren't doing the job for you."

Blayne:

"Perhaps you could be more specific as to what books you are referring to and if so then you could refute their sources rather then labeling them southern supremacy books to try and discredit them without any evidence."

JJ:

You mentioned "The Real Lincoln" by Tom DiLorenzo. That is certainly one. Most things you say about Lincoln mirrors some of the material I've read in Southern Supremacy material. You really sound like you are parroting what I have read in the past -- almost to the extent that I can predict how you will answer next.

Blayne:

"I have and your not including the many slaves they had in the West Indies. You are also ignoring the fact that the law did not emancipate the slaves and that did not happen till later. Britain had been working on freeing slaves for 20 years already.

"http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Slavery/articles/sherwood.html"

JJ:

That's a good article, but nothing in the British empire mirrored the situation of the Confederacy.

JJ quoting himself:

"In the Confederacy over one third of the people were slaves -- over 4 million out of around 9 million people. The South felt that they must hold on to them or their economy would collapse. Not only this but they insisted that the "right" to own slaves be expanded westward and to other nations."

JJ then writes:

You have absolutely no evidence that slavery would have ended any time soon. If it were on the verge of ending then they would not have seceded to preserve slavery.

Blayne:

"I in fact am the only one so far who had posted any reference. Why don't you post a reference for your percentages of those enslaved in the confederacy?"

JJ:

Here is one of many I have come across:

"The South had a population of 9 million, including almost 4 million slaves."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741500823_18/United_States_History.html

If you want a reference on the fact that The South had intent to expand slavery to Cuba, Mexico and South America read the first 120 pages of "The Battle Cry for Freedom" by James McPherson. The Boise Public Library should have the book as well as the audio of it.

Blayne:

"The evidence is that 14 other countries ended slavery peacefully. You can deny it or spin it all you want that does not make it any less evidence."

JJ:

Yes, but let me repeat again (sigh) that slavery was much more institutionalized in the South than any of these countries or the Northern States. Instead of diminishing they were seeking to expand it. Many even thought they would lose their "freedom" if they lost their slaves. How ironic!

Blayne:

"The South wanted to expand to the West so of course they wanted to be able to have slavery there, as it was part of their economy and culture, which was agrarian. However your assertion that the soul reason they wanted to expand to the west was to preserve slavery is ridiculous."

JJ:

I don't believe I said this. I said they were seeking to expand slavery to the West. Slavery was not the reason they were going west, but in going west they wanted to have slaves. Please argue with what I do say, not with what I do not say.

Blayne:

"One other thing not mentioned is law like the Fugitive Slave Act, which propped up slavery. Incidentally Lincoln strongly supported that law."

JJ:

You keep accusing Lincoln of going against the Constitution, but the Constitution was the reason he supported this act. Even though he was personally opposed to it he recognized that we were legally bound by it.

Article 4, Section 23 reads:

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Thank God Lincoln paved the way for the 13th Amendment which superceded it.

Blayne:

"The abolition of that law would have reduced the profitability of slavery helping speed its demise."

JJ:

But that would have been unconstitutional and you seem to be for a black and white support of the Constitution come hell or high water.

You are inconsistent here. You say the South had the right to hold slaves because of the states rights provision of the Constitution, yet you think Lincoln should have directly violated the Constitution by opposing the Fugitive Slave Act -- which was basically already the law because of the Constitution.

Blayne:

"It has also been mentioned that the advent of the tractor and the cotton gin among other things would have greatly diminished the need for slaves in the South. The first tractors were steam engine and invented around 1868. The cotton gin as already invented about 1802 and later improved I believe."

JJ:

Its quite possible the Confederacy would have merely shifted the slaves from the fields to the tractors. I think slavery would have eventually been eliminated but it would have taken much longer than you think -- in my opinion. I think Lincoln advanced the cause of human freedom a good 50 years or more. The sacrifice was great, but it was worth it.

One thing we do know for sure and that is right after his election Lincoln saw his choice as to fight or not fight the creation of a slave state. (See previous quote)

Blayne quoting himself:

"You might try Tom DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" for starters. The tariff had been a source of friction for a long time It almost caused secession several years earlier. It was the real reason for the civil war."

Blayne quoting JJ:

"If you use logic rather than following the mantras of southern supremacists you could never come to this conclusion."

Blayne then writes:

"You are very good as subtly trying to change the subject and the argument.

"Your little label of 'southern supremacy' is meant to try and change the issue to bolster you false argument that it was about slavery and the moral failings of slavery. Some might fall for this sleight of hand type tactic as it is only meant to bias readers against any disagreement to your argument. It won't work on me however."

JJ:

I am accurately educating the readers to the fact that most literature portraying Lincoln as a tyrant or destroyer of the Constitution are people who hold on to the idea that the South was right in its view of Lincoln. These people, of course acknowledge that slavery was wrong but see it as a problem of small significance that would have just faded away without Lincoln.

Ron Paul who has a negative view of Lincoln is closely associated with many of this bent including the Ludwig von Mises Institute which publishes his books.

Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute's senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group. Paul enthusiastically endorsed Woods's secessionist endorsing book, saying that it "heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole."

Blayne:

"I am not arguing that slavery wasn't wrong and morally repugnant, I agree it is and so do those you try to pin your false label on."

JJ:

No one is saying this today, but you and the secessionist movements minimize the problem that slavery was. I am with Lincoln in not minimizing the loss of human freedom -- no matter the place, the time or the race.

Blayne:

"The issue is did Lincoln need to go to war and kill 600,00 of his countrymen in what is known as the Civil War. The answer is clearly no. Your argument is there was no other way. I contend there was and there is plenty of evidence to support there was some of which I have pointed out."

JJ:

I haven't seen any evidence. To compare other countries that did not have institutionalized slavery with the South is fallacious. It is like saying that the Taliban will give equal rights to women soon because other nations have. It's not likely because they have institutionalized their bias.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"First, let me point out that many of DiLorenzo statements are not true or slanted, but also look for what he conveniently left out of his book to mislead readers. A couple good articles on this can be found at:

"http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp

"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27396"

Blayne then writes:

"Well the Claremont Institute crowd is not exactly the pillar of honesty, being a government subsidized think tank that shouldn't be surprising. We could post articles back and forth but it would probably be best to read both sides and weigh the evidence. Here is an article where DiLorenzo responds to the Claremont Institute:

"http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo31.html"

JJ:

I read it. He sounds like a bitter man.

The guy's refuting people I did not quote and says nothing that effectively counters any of my arguments. He does make a lot of the same arguments you do.

Blayne quoting JJ:

"The tariffs were basically tariffs on the exports of the products of slave labor. Without slavery it would not have been an issue. If slavery was not the main factor then non slave states would have seceded also. This observation alone proves my case."

Blayne then writes:

"This is simply not true; can you post some evidence for this assertion? Non-slaves states had no bearing. The tariffs were also on imports and were especially high on the manufactured items the Southern states did not produce."

JJ:

Yes, there were tariffs and taxes on both imports and exports and many in the South felt they were unfair but these alone was not enough to make the South secede.

Of the four states that issued a declaration of cause of secession only Georgia even mentioned the tariff. They all complained of slavery as the main cause:

Here is a statement from Georgia:

"A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."

Mississippi:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. THERE WAS NO CHOICE LEFT US BUT SUBMISSION TO THE MANDATES OF ABOLITION, OR A DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION,"

South Carolina complains:

"Those (Northern) States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

Texas:

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color -- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

See full text at:

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

How clear can the word be? How can one read these declarations and not realize that the problem of slavery was the paramount reason behind secession?

Blayne quoting JJ:

"You are distorting too many facts and quotes here. Lincoln NEVER, I repeat NEVER said he could care less about slavery."

Blayne then writes:

"Amazing I posted a quote of him saying essentially that and now you are denying it? Here it is again:

"'My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.'"

JJ:

There is nothing in that quote about not caring about slavery. I already destroyed the potency of this quote by giving the rest of it. Let me repeat it again what you left out:

"I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

Does his statement you keep leaving out sound like he couldn't care less about slavery? An "oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free" certainly shows that he cares, but at the time he officially had to adhere to the publicly accepted objective of saving the union. He had to be careful to stress this in a letter to the most influential newspaper editor in the United States.