Anemone:This is one of the productive things [sic] that came out of your and my (rankorous [sic]) discussions on my proposed new individualist political state; that you made me challenge the assumption of perpetual union, and I considered your (overly argumentative [sic]) points and come to include secession as a fundamental right of the individual--secession from any power at any time while remaining within your rights. If political power comes from the consent of the individual, then it should die when consent is withdrawn, at least over that individual whom withdraws it. Up to and including leaving the society at large itself.
Up to and including leaving the society at large itself.
The only thing left is for you to understand that "leaving the society" does not require one to abandon his own property - at which point your idea of an "individualist political state" falls apart.
By the way, I still need to make my first "Contra Anemonem" thread. I hope to do so soon.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Anemone:Lincoln's real goal was to free the slaves. The union was his cover story.
What evidence do you have to support this assertion?
Anemone:In any case, the South was aggressing against its people by holding many of them as slaves, and could ethically be invaded for that.
Sure, it could be ethically invaded to free the slaves, but that's not what happened. What you're talking about is basically what John Brown wanted to do, and the federal (i.e. Union) government allowed him to be executed by the state of Virginia.
As it turns out, the issue of slavery at the time was a (significant) factor in the larger issue of states' rights.
Anenome: triknighted: Wayyy off, my friend. Lincoln waged war against the states due to their secession. Not only that, he didn't end slavery; the 13th Amendment did, which was ratified after his death. How about this humdinger of a quote to start what is suspected to be a major (though unintentional) thread hijack. . . . "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." -Abraham Lincoln The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388. Yeah, I put that quote of his on about the same level as Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. Lincoln lied because he couldn't come right out and say what his real aim was. The union was a cover story. He did of course want to keep the union together, no doubt, but that was the means to ending slavery. Lincoln had plenty of opportunities to end slavery through amendment before he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation (which if you read it in its entirety, you realize he doesn't end slavery in the U.S. at all). This might help to add a bit of context: Lincoln refused to end slavery during 1861 and the first half of 1862 for several reasons. First, he believed that the United States Constitution prevented the president from seizing the property -- slaves -- of the country's citizens without due process. Second, Lincoln feared alienating the residents of the Border States -- slave states that had remained in the Union. These people included residents of Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, and Maryland. If these people joined with the South, hundreds of thousands of more men could join the Confederate armies. Lincoln wanted to solidify the North's control over these slaveholding states before acting against slavery. Third, Lincoln realized that many Southerners and Northerners would not support slavery's termination, because it might result in the equality of African Americans with white people. Lincoln hoped to persuade prominent African-American leaders that the black population should move from the United States if slavery ended. The president also had to negotiate with other nations, to convince these countries to accept African-American immigrants. Finally, Lincoln worried that ending slavery would alienate any Unionist sympathizers currently in the South, further strengthening the Confederate war effort. Yet again, Lincoln in his own words: "While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." And this: "Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." While Lincoln did not have slaves, he was not an abolitionist. | Post Points: 5
triknighted: Wayyy off, my friend. Lincoln waged war against the states due to their secession. Not only that, he didn't end slavery; the 13th Amendment did, which was ratified after his death. How about this humdinger of a quote to start what is suspected to be a major (though unintentional) thread hijack. . . . "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." -Abraham Lincoln The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
Wayyy off, my friend. Lincoln waged war against the states due to their secession. Not only that, he didn't end slavery; the 13th Amendment did, which was ratified after his death.
How about this humdinger of a quote to start what is suspected to be a major (though unintentional) thread hijack. . . .
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." -Abraham Lincoln
The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
Yeah, I put that quote of his on about the same level as Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
Lincoln lied because he couldn't come right out and say what his real aim was. The union was a cover story. He did of course want to keep the union together, no doubt, but that was the means to ending slavery.
Autolykos: Anemone:Lincoln's real goal was to free the slaves. The union was his cover story. What evidence do you have to support this assertion? Anemone:In any case, the South was aggressing against its people by holding many of them as slaves, and could ethically be invaded for that. Sure, it could be ethically invaded to free the slaves, but that's not what happened. What you're talking about is basically what John Brown wanted to do, and the federal (i.e. Union) government allowed him to be executed by the state of Virginia. As it turns out, the issue of slavery at the time was a (significant) factor in the larger issue of states' rights.
John Brown, from what I've read, was anything but peaceful. He killed many people, including slave owners, non-slave owners and blacks. While perhaps his intentions were benevolent from the start, he was a sick individual.
stevo_dubc: His response to this is that this is not saying that the individual states are free and independend. He claims that they were referring to the collective entity of "The United States", and that this collectivie entity is free and indenpendent of Britain. He continues to insist that they were not 13 free and independnent nations unto themselves. He also points out that in the declaration they use the term "These united colonies..." and "united states of america", so this proves that they were acting as a union even as they declared their independence. However, as someone has already pointed out, they did not sign the articles of confederation until several years after the declaration.
His response to this is that this is not saying that the individual states are free and independend. He claims that they were referring to the collective entity of "The United States", and that this collectivie entity is free and indenpendent of Britain. He continues to insist that they were not 13 free and independnent nations unto themselves.
He also points out that in the declaration they use the term "These united colonies..." and "united states of america", so this proves that they were acting as a union even as they declared their independence.
However, as someone has already pointed out, they did not sign the articles of confederation until several years after the declaration.
Even under the Articles, the states were completely sovereign. There was no overarching federal (central or national) government other than the one that met once a year to discuss different things the states were doing. That's where the president came in: the presidents were nominated each year to run the congress, which was little more than discussing the ins and outs of foreign policy and so forth, each state sending a representative or two to connect with their neighbors. The very lack of a federal government is the entire reason Alexander Hamilton came up with the brilliant idea to have national taxation, a national bank, etc. There was no control over the states, which was great if you ask me.
The idea of the confederation was to have independent, sovereign states bonded only in friendship (for voluntary transactions with neighboring states) and in time of war. We acted as one unit, for the most part, against the British. There was the militia, then there were private citizens with arms. These combined, we kicked the British asses back across the pond.
Your friend should read up on the dates these documents were created. An implied union is not the same as a contractual union, and even then secession is allowed due to the 10th Amendment. Secession is not mentioned in the current U.S. Constitution, and according to the 10th Amendment . . .
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Autolykos:The only thing left is for you to understand that "leaving the society" does not require one to abandon his own property
I don't believe I've ever suggested that it would require one to abandon their property. Pretty sure I'd said people could float out their own property or establish a new jurisdiction over their own property in place. One of the key featurs of the new political order I propose is that jurisdictional boundaries move rather than requiring people to move. I simply assume that, for most people, if they disagree with a jurisdiction enough to leave it, they will want to join another jurisdiction, form their own with the likeminded, or stay out of them altogether. The first two options would mean moving your property to join another jurisdiction. But that wouldn't mean abandoning it.
Autolykos: - at which point your idea of an "individualist political state" falls apart.
Not sure that's true. Probably not the forum to get into tho.
Autolykos:By the way, I still need to make my first "Contra Anemonem" thread. I hope to do so soon.
Good, good, and I hope you manage to spell my handle correctly in process.
Anemone:I don't believe I've ever suggested that it would require one to abandon their property. Pretty sure I'd said people could float out their own property or establish a new jurisdiction over their own property in place.
Once again, you change the context from general notions of property and the state to the specific notion of your seasteading colony. That's dishonest and I wish you would stop doing it.
Anemone:One of the key featurs of the new political order I propose is that jurisdictional boundaries move rather than requiring people to move. I simply assume that, for most people, if they disagree with a jurisdiction enough to leave it, they will want to join another jurisdiction, form their own with the likeminded, or stay out of them altogether. The first two options would mean moving your property to join another jurisdiction. But that wouldn't mean abandoning it.
Is your new political order necessarily tied to seasteading? Yes or no? Because I don't see how it ever has been. What I see is you retreating into that specific example when you want to avoid being cornered in logical terms.
Anemone:Not sure that's true. Probably not the forum to get into tho.
You've already gotten into it, so now what?
Anemone:Good, good, and I hope you manage to spell my handle correctly in process.
...
The phrase "contra anemonem" is Latin. It means "against the anemone". I spelled your handle correctly for Latin, as the accusative singular case requires an -m ending.
Autolykos: Anemone:Good, good, and I hope you manage to spell my handle correctly in process. ... The phrase "contra anemonem" is Latin. It means "against the anemone". I spelled your handle correctly for Latin, as the accusative singular case requires an -m ending.
Oh snap.
Concerning the Articles of Confederation being called "Perpetual," Kevin R. C. Gutzman writes in the Politically Incorrect Guide To The Constitution (pp. 12-13):
"The United States were states, and they had joined together. The fact that their union had no set end date, in part because the length of the war could not be foreseen, was denoted by calling it 'perpetual.' (In those days treaties between European states often purported to be 'perpetual.' This did not mean that neither side could bring a treaty agreement to an end, but that there was no built-in sunset provision.)"
@OP: Is this argument part of a larger argument?
I get the feeling that the talk of state sovereignty and the right to secede probably occurred within a larger context.
Were you basically arguing that the states have the right to secede?
Well the states certainly have the right to try.
It's been tried before though, didn't work out so well.
His point is that none of the states ever existed separately and not as part of a united states, either under a continental congress, articles of confederation, or constitution.
Well, there was Vermont 1777-1791 and Texas 1836-1848. Wouldn't that count?
Good point. Thanks.
Also, several small states ratified the Constitution under duress. Are these states part of the "Perpetual Union". What about the conditions Virginia place on ratification? What about the Kentucky Resolves? And what about the independent countries like Texas. And the worst of all (Worse than even the treatment of the Cherokees in my opinion) the Annexation and later vote for statehood of the State of Hawaii.