Black History Month: Where Are All the Black Libertarians?

Found in The Examiner

February 8, 2013
by Garry Reed

For years people have been asking, “Where are all the female libertarians?”

The Libertarian News Examiner has been answering that question since 2008, most recently in ‘Voluntaryist vixens’ video interview invites visitors.

Now, especially since February is Black History Month , it’s time to ask “Where are all the Black libertarians?”

While Black libertarians are scattered throughout the blogosphere here is a quick survey of Facebook pages that present libertarianism from the African American viewpoint.

Please read the rest of the article here .

166 thoughts on “Black History Month: Where Are All the Black Libertarians?

  1. Andy

    “NewFederalist // Feb 8, 2013 at 6:50 pm

    Thomas Sowell?”

    Sowell is quite a disappointment. He is libertarian on a lot of issues, but not when it comes to foreign policy and the whole “War on Terror.”

  2. Michael H. Wilson

    Lack of adequate outreach may be the reason. Of course with membership seriously in decline for some time it may be that we might want to ask that about any group, black, white, male or female.

  3. NewFederalist

    Perhaps the LP should target Native Americans. They vote less than other groups and have far more reason to not trust the US government than most.

  4. Andy

    “5 NewFederalist // Feb 8, 2013 at 7:22 pm

    Perhaps the LP should target Native Americans. They vote less than other groups and have far more reason to not trust the US government than most.”

    I was in South Dakota a few years ago, and I remember having a conversation with a Native American woman who told me that she was a die hard Democrat and she said that everyone on the reservation where she lived voted straight Democrat. She spoke of herself and the rest of the reservation as a group, as in she said “we” a lot.

    I’m not saying that there are not Native Americans who are libertarians, because I know there are some (like the late Russell Means comes to mind), and I’m not saying that there are not Native Americans who COULD BE libertarians if they knew about it, because I’m sure there are, but I’m just saying that a lot of them have been hooked into voting for the Democratic Party.

    If any group racial or ethnic group ought to be libertarian, and distrust the government, one would think that it would be Native Americans.

  5. Andy

    Oh, and the woman above did not refer to herself as a Native American, she referred to herself as an Indian.

    I don’t really like the term Indian, not because it is less politically correct, but rather because it is not accurate. Indians refer to people from India.

  6. Tom Blanton

    Wilt Alston,
    Gary Gibson,
    Roy Childs used to be a prominent black libertarian until he died.

    It’s funny when all a white guy has to do is be for gun rights and tax cuts to be a libertarian, but a black guy that carries a gun, refuses to pay taxes, AND more or less openly smokes weed would be shunned by most white libertarians I know.

    George Clinton, mastermind behind all that is P-Funk, raps about CIA dope dealing, and sings about freeing your mind and your ass will follow, and chants “Think, It Ain’t Illegal Yet”, and he’s been doing it for over 40 years.

    Snoop Dogg? C’mon now y’all. And most white libertarians got no clue about Swamp Dogg.

    These guys know more about freedom on many levels and promote it than most LP members can comprehend.

    It might be that a lot of black people don’t think political libertarians are really serious about freedom. I can understand why.

    It also might just be that too many white libertarians think of black people as folks voting for Obama and cashing welfare checks. The truth is that a lot of black people I know live an agorist lifestyle and avoid the government and politicians like the plague. Poor black people (as well as poor white and brown people) survive because of gray and black markets. Entrepreneurs without tax ID numbers and business licenses live what libertarians babble about.

    People who don’t comply with government rules, or have outstanding warrants, or owe the government money don’t stand in government welfare lines or live in government projects (where all freedom is absent).

    So, while a lot of white libertarians talk a good libertarian game (and some can’t even pull that off), there’s a lot of black people living it. But maybe they aren’t really libertarians. Could be they are more like anarchists because they don’t care about politics – they just try to work around it.

    Back when Badnarik was running, a black guy I knew said he seemed like just another white guy in a suit. I told him that’s what Badnarik was going for. We both laughed.

    If the LP could ever give just half of the people who don’t vote a reason to go vote for an LP candidate, they could actually win an election. But just another white guy in a suit that mimics a mainstream politician ain’t going to make that happen. Ever.

  7. Andy

    “It’s funny when all a white guy has to do is be for gun rights and tax cuts to be a libertarian, but a black guy that carries a gun, refuses to pay taxes, AND more or less openly smokes weed would be shunned by most white libertarians I know.”

    I don’t know about whom you are speaking, but those things sounds like the individual in question could be a libertarian.

    “If the LP could ever give just half of the people who don’t vote a reason to go vote for an LP candidate, they could actually win an election. But just another white guy in a suit that mimics a mainstream politician ain’t going to make that happen. Ever.”

    I’ve long said that one of the largest potential voting blocks for Libertarians are people who are currently non-voters. Many of these people don’t vote because they are turned off by both the Democrats and the Republicans. They are not all necessarily libertarians, but I think that a lot of them are, even though most of the ones who are do not realize it.

  8. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    TB @ 12: I love Snoop Dogg. He lives in a neighboring town, and is actually known as a good family man and coach.

  9. Tom Blanton

    David Earl Williams III looks kind of black, but that nasty elephant gives it away – he’s a Republican.

    He thinks Rand Paul gave an “astute” foreign policy speech to the Heritage Foundation. That’s pretty funny.

    The war on drugs is useless. Legalize Marijuana, regulate it as a controlled substance like Alcohol and Cigarettes; along with taxing it.

    Yuk, yuk. Regulate. Control. Tax.

    Limited government. Heh, heh.

    Hey, we can limit government to fighting a war on just some drugs. Boy, that would be a big change, huh?

    Nobody ever mentions that limited government means limited freedom.

    It seems like Williams might be going for the whole white guy in a suit thing too. It’s a disease that infects politicians of all types. Maybe he’s a Wayne Root-Libertarian, uh I mean a Reagan-Libertarian.

  10. Michael H. Wilson

    Tom you sound like a brother to me. Biggest problem I know is there ain’t no one in the LP who is angry. Get angry. Get Loud and Proud!

    I went to a meeting some 20 years ago about gang problems in Portland. Must have been 15 or 20 white people in a room with a couple of local government facilitators and one black man.

    All these white people sitting around telling folks what we got to do. Finally the black man speaks up and say we need to get rid of all the licensing laws so that people can get jobs. He pointed out that all licensing did was protect those already in business. The whites just ignored him and went on to something else.

  11. DSZ

    @ 8 – no, Indian refers to “La gente en Dios” – People in (of) God – Columbus’ term for those he found in the Caribbean. Most Indians throughout the western hemisphere prefer this term except in the US’ Western time zone. “Native Americans” is a term pretty much created by the government to distinguish them from Alaska Natives, who are treated a bit differently under federal law (thanks to Nixon they have tribal corporations rather than reservations). The Canadian term First Nations isn’t too shabby if you ask me.

    I remember seeing a well-spoken Sioux LP candidate for Congress in a debate on CSPAN – I believe he was in South Dakota (I think Begay was his last name). Richard Winger reported recently that Shannon County, which includes the Pine Ridge Reservation, was the most heavily democratic county in the country in 2012 (more so than DC!) With many Indians I believe it comes down to a) the government has screwed us out of so much historically, now we can only survive with its assistance or b) the government has screwed us out of so much, why should we trust them rather than trusting in our family/clan structures, and urging our government to allow us to fully reconstruct them? The latter seemed to be the SD candidate’s position, but it seems with most western Indian groups the former is their position out of a fear for their own survival. I believe the LP could make more headway with eastern Indians, Oklahoma Indians, possibly native Hawaiians (currently unrecognized federally), and possibly with native Alaskans (AK traditionally a libertarian state, AK natives upset with the feds but also upset with the corporation system they set up, so they might mistrust free markets).

    Now back on topic, someone I knew in college is quietly making a name for himself as a black libertarian republican: http://www.rollcall.com/news/hill_climbers_for_orlando_watson_timing_on_hill_was_elementary-222255-1.html?pg=1

    From my personal interaction with him I can say his sentiments are genuine. I just wish he wouldn’t associate “conservative” and “libertarian” so closely.

  12. DSZ

    Just wanted to clarify my last statement to say I am not an Indian/native person myself, just that my points are my perception based on the native people I’ve known and the research I’ve done in federal recognition issues for native groups. The way I worded it made it sound like I might be speaking as a native person.

  13. Robert Capozzi

    tb12: Roy Childs used to be a prominent black libertarian until he died.

    me: Were there 2 Roys? I interned for Roy’s Libertarian Review one summer back in the day, and his skin was lighter than mine.

  14. Steven R Linnabary

    People join the LP when they have a reason to.

    At the 1987 Seattle Convention there were quite a few obviously Native Americans, 20-30 in my estimation. And they were not all there in support of Russell Means. Out of approximately 400 attendees, that isn’t too bad.

    I’m certain that if a prominent black American (such as Calvin Broadus, Jr aka SnoopDogg) ran for the LP nomination, we would see an upsurge of minority participation.

    FWIW, in each of my races I did just as well if not better in black neighborhoods as I did in white neighborhoods.

    PEACE

  15. Kevin Knedler

    Interesting when I see comments about the “decline of membership in the LP”. I would ask that you add to that comment, “in some areas” or “in general”. Why? Because in Ohio, our membership is up 25% since 2010, our team is getting bigger, our county affiliate numbers are growing, our contributions are growing, our number of candidates are growing, and we just became the largest state affiliate with “likes” on facebook. So, bottom line, all is not lost and we are NOT declining in all areas of the country.

  16. Michael H. Wilson

    Kevin the membership is down significantly since 2000. It is about half of what it was then.

    Regardless you and the team in Ohio deserve to be congratulated for the work you have done there.

    Here’s to ya!

  17. Andy

    “Steven R Linnabary // Feb 9, 2013 at 9:16 am

    People join the LP when they have a reason to.

    At the 1987 Seattle Convention there were quite a few obviously Native Americans, 20-30 in my estimation. And they were not all there in support of Russell Means. Out of approximately 400 attendees, that isn’t too bad.”

    I’d say that it is pretty pathetic. Why? Because they were obviously there only to vote for Russell Means and they did not stick around the party after that.

    If a few people join an a party only or primarily to vote for somebody from their racial or ethnic background, and then they leave that party after that candidate does not win, THIS IS NOT A SIGN OF BRINGING IN PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS.

    The fact of the matter is that I’ve been in the Libertarian Party since 1996 and I’ve been to many Libertarian Party meetings in multiple states, and every meeting that I’ve been to the majority of the people there were white males.

  18. Andy

    “Steven Wilson // Feb 9, 2013 at 11:55 am

    Liberty was to be color blind.”

    I think that liberty is color blind, and I don’t think that most people in the Libertarian Party are any kind of racists, but the fact of the matter is that the party since its inception has primarily brought in white males.

    If we want to change this then it is going to take some big changes in marketing.

  19. Andy

    Kevin Knedler said: “Because in Ohio, our membership is up 25% since 2010, our team is getting bigger, our county affiliate numbers are growing, our contributions are growing, our number of candidates are growing, and we just became the largest state affiliate with “likes” on facebook. So, bottom line, all is not lost and we are NOT declining in all areas of the country.”

    I’m glad to see that membership is up in Ohio since 2010, but how do the numbers compare now from the numbers from back when the party as a whole was growing in the late ’90′s to 2000?

    The Libertarian Party grew from ’94-2000, but after the 2000 election it started on a downward spiral from which it has still yet to recover.

  20. Andy

    “I’m certain that if a prominent black American (such as Calvin Broadus, Jr aka SnoopDogg) ran for the LP nomination, we would see an upsurge of minority participation.”

    It is a pretty sad state of affairs when people can’t just listen to ideas, regardless of the skin color of the messenger, and can only be brought in when somebody who looks like them is the messenger.

    Why not just listen to what each candidate has to say and vote based on that? I think that it is pretty moronic to only vote for somebody based on their skin color or ethnicity.

  21. Bob Tiernan

    Tom Blanton said, “…but a black guy that carries a gun, refuses to pay taxes, AND more or less openly smokes weed would be shunned by most white libertarians I know.”

    Oh, really? You’ve polled “most white Libertarians”?

    Bob Tiernan

  22. Dave Terry

    BT (28)
    One need only heed the words of our illustrious
    Chairman George Phillies who clearly believes that more Latino, Blacks and women is contrary to best interests of the LP, and will drive white guys OUT!

  23. Andy

    “Dave Terry // Feb 9, 2013 at 5:34 pm

    BT (28)
    One need only heed the words of our illustrious
    Chairman George Phillies who clearly believes that more Latino, Blacks and women is contrary to best interests of the LP, and will drive white guys OUT!”

    ???

  24. Tom Blanton

    Well Bobby, I haven’t polled most white libertarians. But then I’m not talking about all white libertarians. I’m talking about white libertarians I know.

    Now, you probably have no idea of what the people you know say or the way they think. So, I imagine you must poll the people you know in order to have any idea about how they think.

    I just pay attention to what the people I know say and do to develop some idea about where their heads are at.

    Here in Virginia, I’ve heard comments from white libertarians at a gun show doing outreach that made me cringe regarding black people they perceived as “gangstas” buying guns. So much for their strong belief in the 2nd Amendment, huh?

    Also in most of Virginia, it is quite common for “libertarians” to embrace any white statist conservative as a libertarian if he or she is for tax cuts and packs heat.

    But what the hell do I know, Bobby? I’m sure you know the white libertarians that I know better than I could because you have probably polled all the white libertarians I KNOW! Right, Bobby?

  25. Tom Blanton

    But seriously, maybe Bob Tiernan could give libertarians a lot of good advice on why there aren’t many black libertarians.

    After all, he is a Republican and we all know, without taking any polls or doing head counts, how successful the GOP has been at attracting black people.

    Maybe he could reveal the secret methods that Republicans use to attract all those black folks to the GOP base.

  26. Robert Capozzi

    I’d ask what should be obvious: With so many Ls buying the revisionist take on the Confederate Elite Insurrection, is it any wonder that blacks would not find L-ism attractive?

  27. Thomas L. Knapp

    “With so many Ls buying the revisionist take on the Confederate Elite Insurrection, is it any wonder that blacks would not find L-ism attractive?”

    Do you really think that very many Ls buy a neo-Confederate line?

  28. Michael H. Wilson

    RC can you please explain what you mean at 33?

    I ask because my paternal ancestors are from northern Alabama and we had relatives on both sides.

  29. Bob Tiernan

    Terry: One need only heed the words of our illustrious Chairman George Phillies who clearly believes that more Latino, Blacks and women is contrary to best interests of the LP, and will drive white guys OUT!

    Okay, there’s ONE guy.

    B. Tiernan

  30. Bob Tiernan

    “Well Bobby, I haven’t polled most white libertarians. ”

    Just as I thought, Tommy. Therefore your use of the phrase, “would be shunned by most white libertarians I know” can be very misleading.

    “But then I’m not talking about all white libertarians. I’m talking about white libertarians I know.”

    A limited number, and no poll. That’s all I’m pointing out.

    “Now, you probably have no idea of what the people you know say or the way they think. So, I imagine you must poll the people you know in order to have any idea about how they think.”

    Nope. Never claimed to. But then, I’m not trying to draw a conclusion based on a limited number of anecdotes.

    “Also in most of Virginia, it is quite common for ‘libertarians’ to embrace any white statist conservative as a libertarian if he or she is for tax cuts and packs heat.”

    Then we’re talking about a lot of people who are not really libertarians. I know all about this sort of thing, for in Oregon we have a power-hungry schmuck named Burke who from time to time brings in new party members who thought they were libertarians because of a handful of issues, and they brought their strong anti-abortion, Ten Commandments-in-the-courthouse baggage with them.

    But I never took their views on everything as being examples of what “Libertarians I know” are thinking.

    Bob T Tiernan

  31. Bob Tiernan

    Tommy 31:

    “But seriously, maybe Bob Tiernan could give libertarians a lot of good advice on why there aren’t many black libertarians.”

    No, I’m not going to try to provide an explanation. I’m simply not going to draw any conclusions based on a limited number of anecdotes.

    “After all, he is a Republican”

    Now that’s what I mean. You’ve drawn an inaccurate conclusion based on flimsy evidence and assumptions.

    I rest my case.

    Bob Tiernan

  32. Bob Tiernan

    George Phillies:

    “Readers wondering exactly how far off base @28 is should look up which very good friend I asked to be on the New Hampshire ballot with me in 2008.”

    But Mr. Phillies, DID YOU SAY what #28 claims you said? We can’t wait for that very good frind of yours to show up and explain anything.

    Bob Tiernan

  33. Green_Liberal

    @34 sadly, many Ls do. Incredibly, Ron Paul seems to endorse that perspective and recommends books on the civil war by Thomas Lorenzo.

  34. Tommy Blanton

    I’m not sure which is worse, the conventional “Honest Abe saved the union and freed the slaves” history or the revisionist take on the “Confederate Elite Insurrection”

    Here’s a bit of “revisionist history” found this weekend at an unlikely neo-confederate website:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/08/abe-lincoln-racist-fascist/

    The reality is that while war criminal Lincoln was sitting on his throne in DC, Jeff Davis had his own little police state tyranny in Richmond complete with forced conscription of men walking down the street and even alcohol prohibition.

    But what’s the big deal, Capozzi? History is filled with tales of tyrants gone wild. After all, isn’t it better to be ruled by sociopathic murderers than it is to have self-rule? There might be violence, chaos and disorder without madmen imposing government, right?

    Little things like slavery, killing civilians, burning cities, conscription, government confiscation of property to pay for wars, etc. are all a part of glorious government keeping order.

    Are you saying that black people wouldn’t understand these complexities of governance?

  35. Michael H. Wilson

    TB @ 42. The Bob Tiernan on here is a different person. The Bob Tiernan who has been commenting here recently is one of the more principled libertarians I have known and I have known him for about 20 years.

  36. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 41 Green Liberal or anyone else for that matter I haven’t read anything by Thomas Lorenzo. Is he an apologist for the South?

  37. Green_Liberal

    Di Lorenzo tries to spread misleading memes around like “Lincoln didn’t oppose slavery” or “Lincoln was a racist” or “the Civil War wasn’t about slavery”. He’s entitled to his opinion, but when Ron Paul publicly supports the guy’s ideas I want to pull my hair out. This association discredits Ron Paul–when liberals refuse to hear Paul out, this is one of the better excuses.

    Anybody with skill in history can simply look up what the Confederate leaders said about their reasons for secession and draw their own conclusions. This speech, for example, is very clear.

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

    To suggest the Civil War wasn’t about slavery because that wasn’t Lincoln’s initial stated reason is pretty shallow imo. The simple fact is there is no secession without slavery, opposition to slavery, and the desire on the part of prominent Southerners to perpetuate and expand the institution.

    Ron Paul also embarrasses himself when he suggests that Southern landowners should have been compensated for their slaves. This may be pragmatic and even humane, but it is not just. Justice would have been for the landowners’ property to be distributed among the slaves.

    I’m not saying Lincoln or the Civil War should be defended uncritically, but I do think it’s necessary (in politics, if not in life) to unambiguously condemn the Confederacy and its leadership. Di Lorenzo probably has some important things to say in his book on Lincoln but his rhetoric can be very misleading.

  38. Oranje Mike

    Di Lorenzo correctly points out Lincoln’s tyrannical faults. Many liberals (and conservatives for that matter) will poo on anything that does not portray Lincolns as the most saintly of presidents.

    Forget about Lincoln’s own words about blacks being inferior to whites.

    Forget about the war crimes he sanctioned and endorsed.

    He “freed the slaves” so the end justifies the means.

  39. Andy

    “48 NewFederalist // Feb 10, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    What ever happened to Dick Boddy”

    He’s still around as far as I know. I saw him at an event in California a few years ago.

  40. Andy

    “Green_Liberal // Feb 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    Di Lorenzo tries to spread misleading memes around like ‘Lincoln didn’t oppose slavery’ or ‘Lincoln was a racist’ or ‘the Civil War wasn’t about slavery’. He’s entitled to his opinion, but when Ron Paul publicly supports the guy’s ideas I want to pull my hair out. This association discredits Ron Paul–when liberals refuse to hear Paul out, this is one of the better excuses.”

    Thomas DiLorenzo is not just spouting his opinions, he is stating facts which can be verified by researching history.

    “Anybody with skill in history can simply look up what the Confederate leaders said about their reasons for secession and draw their own conclusions. This speech, for example, is very clear.”

    Confederate leaders used this issue for propaganda purposes as well, but this does not mean that it was the root cause of the war.

    The root cause of the war was economic.

  41. Andy

    “Ron Paul also embarrasses himself when he suggests that Southern landowners should have been compensated for their slaves.”

    How is he embarrassing himself when this would have been a peaceful, and far cheaper way to end chattel slavery?

    Sure, ideally the slave owners should have just freed all of the slaves and taken the loses, or for that matter they never should have bought slaves to begin with, but we don’t live in an ideal world. The fact of the matter is that they did own slaves, it was an accepted practice at the time (even though there were people who opposed it for moral reasons, it had still been a generally accepted practice), and the slave owners were going to “suffer” an economic loss (even though it would have probably been good for even them in the long run, they did not see it that way).

    So yes, I’d say that raising money to purchase slaves and set them free would have been a better solution to the problem.

  42. Robert Capozzi

    tk 34: Do you really think that very many Ls buy a neo-Confederate line?

    me: Yes. Possibly majorities in the LP is my guess.

    mhw 36: RC can you please explain what you mean at 33?

    me: Yes, I mean that those at least in the Rothbardian camp, folks who buy the Rockwell/DiLorenzo take on the Civil War, poison the LM for blacks. Any talk that Lincoln was not justified in putting down the Confederate Elite Insurrection as I call it is highly likely to alienate African-Americans who have ancestors who were slaves. I’d say understandably so, EVEN IF one bought the revisionist line.

  43. Robert Capozzi

    tb 43: Are you saying that black people wouldn’t understand these complexities of governance?

    me: No. I’m saying that the history of American slavery is a trigger for many black Americans. Revisionist Ls seem to think that the notion that “slavery would have eventually died as an institution” somehow addresses the point that their forebears’s status changed quickly due to the successful putting down of the Confederate Elite Insurrection.

    My hope is that the LM will land on a more true narrative about the Civil War, which is that it was tragic in many ways, that Lincoln was no saint and usurped many powers, but that he was justified, generally speaking, in putting down the Insurrection.

  44. Andy

    “My hope is that the LM will land on a more true narrative about the Civil War, which is that it was tragic in many ways, that Lincoln was no saint and usurped many powers, but that he was justified, generally speaking, in putting down the Insurrection.”

    I fail to see how Lincoln was justified in preventing the southern states from seceding. Remember, Lincoln’s motive was NOT to free slaves.

  45. Dave Terry

    GP (35)
    Perhaps, then, Mr. Phillies can explain why his response to my saying the the LP is too White and too Males and that we need to reach out to Blacks, Latinos and bring more women into leadership roles; his comment was to ask if I intended to drive out White Males.

  46. Michael H. Wilson

    Andy I can justify it not that I care to get into a tussle over the damn issue.

    It probably can be safely assumed that a majority of the population in the South did not approve of the secession. I doubt that the slaves did and many if not most of the non slave holding population did not approve. It was mostly the plantation owners who held slaves that wanted to secede which was a minority of the population.

  47. Andy

    “Michael H. Wilson // Feb 10, 2013 at 10:36 pm

    Andy I can justify it not that I care to get into a tussle over the damn issue.

    It probably can be safely assumed that a majority of the population in the South did not approve of the secession. I doubt that the slaves did and many if not most of the non slave holding population did not approve. It was mostly the plantation owners who held slaves that wanted to secede which was a minority of the population.”

    This is complete bull. Most southerners did in fact support secession, and many of them volunteered to fight for their homeland. Also, NOTHING was preventing those who did not support seceding from the union from moving voluntarily out of the confederacy.

    Another important point here, is that slavery continued to exist in states that did not secede from the union, such as in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. There were also slaves in Washington DC.

    The states entered the union voluntarily, and there is nothing in the Constitution that says that states have to stay in the union permanently. This country was actually FOUNDED on the right of secession when the 13 original colonies of England seceded from that country.

  48. Andy

    I just looked up some information about slavery in Delaware, and it turns out that Delaware did have slaves that were not freed until the 13th amendment was passed in 1865. Slavery had been on the decline in Delaware, but there were still slaves in Delaware during the Civil War, and Delaware was a union state.

  49. Michael H. Wilson

    Andy I have no idea what part of the South you are from or even if you are from the South. I went to school in Memphis and Jacksonville, Florida and my father’s family is from Walker Co. Alabama. I was steeped in the lore and history of the South from the time I was little and one of the first things I learned was that in the war it was often brother against brother and cousin against cousin.

  50. Michael H. Wilson

    Andy I Googled Divided South and this is a book that came up. It might be worth a read.

    Bitterly Divided
    The South’s Inner Civil War

    David Williams

    In an eye-opening book that Booklist praised as “impressively documented, essential Civil War reading,” historian David Williams lays bare the myth of a united confederacy, revealing that the South was in fact fighting two civil wars—an external one that we know so much about and an internal one about which there is scant literature and virtually no public awareness.

    Bitterly Divided skillfully shows that from the Confederacy’s very beginnings white Southerners were as likely to have opposed secession as supported it, and they undermined the Confederate war effort at nearly every turn. In just one of many telling examples in this rich and surprising narrative history, Williams shows that when planters grew too much cotton and tobacco and exempted themselves from the draft, plain folk called the conflict a “rich man’s war” and rioted. Many formed armed anti-Confederate bands. Southern blacks, in what W.E.B. DuBois called “a general strike against the Confederacy,” resisted in increasingly overt ways, escaped by the thousands, and forced a change in the war’s direction that led to emancipation.

    This immensely readable and riveting new analysis takes on the Confederacy’s popular image and reveals it to be, like the Confederacy itself, a fatally fractured edifice.

    David Williams is the author of A People’s History of the Civil War, Plain Folk in a Rich Man’s War, Johnny Reb’s War, and Rich Man’s War. A native of Miller County, Georgia, he holds a PhD in history from Auburn University. He is a professor of history at Valdosta State University in Valdosta, Georgia, where for the past twenty years he has taught courses in Georgia history, the Old South, and the Civil War era.

  51. Andy

    “In an eye-opening book that Booklist praised as “impressively documented, essential Civil War reading,” historian David Williams lays bare the myth of a united confederacy, revealing that the South was in fact fighting two civil wars—an external one that we know so much about and an internal one about which there is scant literature and virtually no public awareness.

    Bitterly Divided skillfully shows that from the Confederacy’s very beginnings white Southerners were as likely to have opposed secession as supported it, and they undermined the Confederate war effort at nearly every turn.”

    I don’t doubt that there were some southerners who did not support secession, but keep in mind that there were colonist who did not support seceding from England.

    Some southerners not supporting secession still did not justify the northern invasion.

  52. Andy

    “Michael H. Wilson // Feb 11, 2013 at 12:33 am

    Andy I have no idea what part of the South you are from or even if you are from the South.”

    I’ve lived in many states in my life time, north, south, east, and west. What does this have to do with anything?

  53. Andy

    Watch the video I posted above of DL Hughley (who is black) interviewing Ron Paul. It is apparent in the interview that Ron Paul wins over DL Hughley, and DL Hughley even comments that Ron Paul’s position on the Civil War makes a lot of sense.

  54. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 63 how about if someone suggests that Lincoln had the responsibility to rescue those who were not supportive of the Confederacy and would have preferred to stay in the Union? Would that be acceptable? After all secession is all about one group of people in a geographic area forcing another group to do something they object to. The old minority, majority dispute.

    @ 64 people in the South are drowned in this public relations crap that the war was righteous much more so than in other states.

  55. Andy

    “Michael H. Wilson // Feb 11, 2013 at 1:37 am

    @ 63 how about if someone suggests that Lincoln had the responsibility to rescue those who were not supportive of the Confederacy and would have preferred to stay in the Union? Would that be acceptable? After”

    Wow! This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.

    Going by your “logic,” ole King George of England was justified in waging war against the American colonists because some of the American colonist did not support seceding from England.

    Yeah, Lincoln was so concerned about these southerners that he sent generals down their to burn down their cities.

    If a southerner did not like the Confederacy, all they had to do was move out of it.

  56. Andy

    “Yeah, Lincoln was so concerned about these southerners that he sent generals down their to burn down their cities. ”

    Should read “down there,” but the point remains the same.

  57. Robert Capozzi

    Andy, I’ve offered my theory of why blacks are under-represented in the LM. Do you have one?

    BTW, the point is there was no “secession.” There was, however, an “insurrection.”

    Secession is a word, btw, that does NOT appear in the Constitution. Insurrection, however, does.

    That is a fact!

  58. Steven R Linnabary

    <>It is a pretty sad state of affairs when people can’t just listen to ideas, regardless of the skin color of the messenger, and can only be brought in when somebody who looks like them is the messenger.

    Why not just listen to what each candidate has to say and vote based on that? I think that it is pretty moronic to only vote for somebody based on their skin color or ethnicity.<>

    Andy, it isn’t so much “looks” as it is language. Many of us in the LP don’t know how to talk to other groups in language that is understood. I suppose we do a pretty good job of speaking a language understood by gay software designers, Constitutionalists and anarchists. But we haven’t talked to black voters or women in language that is appealing.

    I certainly don’t have the answers, but I recognize our shortcomings.

    Black voters in particular know that government is a good thing because they remember or have heard stories from from family members about having to sit on the back of the bus and not being allowed to sit at lunch counters and even having to live in other parts of town.

    Granted, it was the law. But telling a black voter that Civil Rights Laws were not needed (or that it is bad law) will draw blank stares or maybe even violent reactions. Maybe because they remember what life was like 50 years ago.

    We can either learn to speak in language that is understood, wait for a prominent black politician or whine that black voters don’t want freedom.

    PEACE

  59. Michael H. Wilson

    Andy @ 54 you wrote I fail to see how Lincoln was justified in preventing the southern states from seceding.

    I then justified it. I did not say it was right. Unfortunately a lot of the debate about the Civil War is based around “justifying” questionable issues.

  60. Green_Liberal

    @50 “Confederate leaders used this issue for propaganda purposes as well, but this does not mean that it was the root cause of the war.

    The root cause of the war was economic.”

    So it’s ok to use what Lincoln said in political speeches to paint him as a racist who supported slavery, but it’s problematic to note the Confederate leaders’ own rhetoric re. the reasons for secession? This Confederate leader is espousing principles totally contrary to individualism and liberty–namely that there is a natural order among races and slavery is a natural condition.

    I don’t doubt for a moment that there were less then savory industrialist elements profiting from the Civil War and that Lincoln obliged them. However, wars are fought over conflicts, and the conflict here was slavery. No slavery, no secession, no war. Leaving aside the question of whether secession should be legal–allowing the South to secede means tolerating a uniquely evil slave republic from Florida to Arizona.

  61. Green_Liberal

    “How is he embarrassing himself when this would have been a peaceful, and far cheaper way to end chattel slavery?

    Sure, ideally the slave owners should have just freed all of the slaves and taken the loses, or for that matter they never should have bought slaves to begin with, but we don’t live in an ideal world. The fact of the matter is that they did own slaves, it was an accepted practice at the time (even though there were people who opposed it for moral reasons, it had still been a generally accepted practice), and the slave owners were going to “suffer” an economic loss (even though it would have probably been good for even them in the long run, they did not see it that way).

    So yes, I’d say that raising money to purchase slaves and set them free would have been a better solution to the problem.”

    Well, I can’t really disagree that IN THEORY paying off the landowners would have been better then 600K+ dead. But is there any evidence that the South was prepared to compromise on the issue? From all appearances, the South was unwilling to accept the (supposedly racist and pro-slavery) Lincoln as president because they feared his intentions re. slavery.

    Would you free all the slaves at once or only free them after they’d served for 20 years? What if the landowners just bred more slaves? How long would it take before complete emancipation?

    My larger point above is that however legit this discussion actually is, it’s bad politics for Ron Paul to be indulging in it. If Ron Paul wants to talk about the Civil War, he must explicitly condemn the Confederacy. If he’s worried about alienating white supremacists, then he should stay mum on the issue.

    I think discussing this issue helps clarify why Ron Paul did not achieve widespread African-American support, despite the glaring contrast between him and the other major-party candidates on issues of major import to African-Americans.

    A few months ago I was surfing youtube and was taken aback to see Cynthia McKinney talk about preferring a racist (Paul) to a warmonger (Obama), because she’s used to dealing with racists…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGoZ_q6q4aM

    While I definitely don’t think Paul is a racist, Paul’s unsavory associations and ideological quirks do provide some basis for McKinney to talk that way.

    This is one of the reasons the establishment was not truly afraid of Paul–he was vulnerable to a smear on this issue.

  62. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Feb 11, 2013 at 6:31 am

    Andy, I’ve offered my theory of why blacks are under-represented in the LM. Do you have one?”

    Unlike the typical armchair/keyboard warrior in the Libertarian Party, I’m one of the few people in the LP who has done a significant amount of in person outreach to large, diverse groups of people, including many, many black (aka-African American) people.

    I have found that there actually is a relatively large number of black people who DO agree with libertarians. Not a majority, but a majority of white people are not libertarians either. The number of black people who agree with libertarians is a lot higher than is represented in current Libertarian Party membership, and in who shows up at Libertarian/libertarian meetings or events, but they are out there.

    Objections I’ve heard from black people about the Libertarian Party are the same objections I hear from white people.

    Some object because they are big government types. A lot are Democrats, but I’ve encountered a surprising number that are Republicans. They do not support libertarians because they are against individual liberty.

    Some object even though they agree with Libertarians on a lot of issues, but they have one or two “deal breaker” issues that they can’t get past.

    Some object because they think that Libertarians can’t win. Out of these people, some think that you’ve got to chose between the “lesser of two evils,” while others have given up on politics.

    Some object because they are disinterested in politics.

    Although the term “libertarian” has gotten more popular over the last 10 years there are still a lot of people out there who either don’t know what it is, or who have heard the term but have misconceptions about what it is, and about who is a libertarian. So a lot of black people don’t know what a libertarian is, or have misconceptions about what it is (like they think it is Lyndon LaRouche or Ralph Nader or somebody else who is not a libertarian), but then again, there are still a lot of white people out there who don’t know what a libertarian is, or who have misconceptions about what it is.

    I’ve encountered black people who identified themselves to me as libertarians, or who after me telling them about what a libertarian is, made statements like, “Yeah, I agree with that.” and a few them even switched their voter registration to Libertarian Party after speaking to me.

    I can certainly see how some black people could be turned off by a tendency of some libertarians to venerate the Founding Fathers (a lot of whom were slave owners), or who appear to sound sympathetic to the Confederacy, especially if they don’t listen long enough to understand that libertarian oppose slavery, but I really don’t think that this is a major reason as to why there are not more black people in the Libertarian Party and movement.

    I think that it comes down to the fact that the Libertarian Party was founded by white guys, many of whom tend to be “geeky computer nerd” types. Geeky computer nerd white guys tend to hang out with other geeky computer nerd white guys.

    I’ve been critical of the lack of outreach culture that permeates the Libertarian Party. Libertarians tend to engage in lot of preaching to the choir and debating minutia, and not a lot of outreach. So this is why LP chapters often consist of diminishing numbers of white guys who preach to the choir and argue among themselves.

    When Libertarians/libertarians do political outreach, a lot of it tends to either be to people who are most like themselves (as in other geeky computer nerd white guys), or a lot of it tends to be skewed toward the political right, as in going after disaffected conservatives/Republicans. I’m not completely opposed to doing outreach to conservatives/Republicans, but I am opposed to this being where the bulk of the outreach is done.

    Most black people who vote are Democrats. There are black conservatives, and there are black conservatives who vote Republican, but there are also socially conservative blacks who vote for Democrats.

    Considering that most blacks who take part in electoral politics vote for Democrats, and considering that the Libertarian Party and movement has done less outreach to Democrats and to those on the left than it has done with conservatives/Republicans, is it really surprising that such a low number of black people show up in Libertarian/libertarian ranks?

    If the Libertarian Party and movement wants to change this, then a lot more outreach is going to have to be done to groups outside of the typical “white guy computer nerd” demographic, and the outreach that does take place beyond this should not be so skewed toward the right, as in toward conservatives & Republicans. I’ve long advocated that the Libertarian Party do a balanced outreach approach where just as much outreach is being done with those on the political left, as well as to independents and non-voters, as is being done with conservatives & Republicans.

  63. Andy

    Michael H. Wilson said: “I then justified it. I did not say it was right. Unfortunately a lot of the debate about the Civil War is based around ‘justifying’ questionable issues.”

    I don’t consider the “justification” that you gave to be one that stands up to any historical facts or rational scrutiny.

  64. Michael H. Wilson

    This quote is from the movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance it fits the public relations campaign that has been conducted in the South since the war “This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend”.

    And for the record Andy I did not say the justification I gave was historically accurate but like much of what passes for history isn’t accurate especially about the South and the War.

  65. Robert Capozzi

    a: I can certainly see how some black people could be turned off by a tendency of some libertarians to venerate the Founding Fathers (a lot of whom were slave owners), or who appear to sound sympathetic to the Confederacy, ….I think that it comes down to the fact that the Libertarian Party was founded by white guys, many of whom tend to be “geeky computer nerd” types.

    me: I’m pleased we agree on the first part. I’d need to hear more about how the founders have so poisoned things that 40 years later, it’s still white and geeky.

    Potentially, you may be onto something there. Computer code tends to be linear, and perhaps Ls tend to be linear (and deontological) in their thinking.

    If so, we agree there, too.

  66. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “me: I’m pleased we agree on the first part.”

    Well, I’m not so sure that we completely agree, because it appears that you think that this is a bigger factor than I do. I think that the reasons that I pointed out are actually bigger factors for there not being more black people in the Libertarian Party movement.

    “I’d need to hear more about how the founders have so poisoned things that 40 years later, it’s still white and geeky.”

    Because white & nerdy people tend to attract more white & nerdy people, especially when they do very little outreach, and when the outreach that they do is geared more toward people that are like them.

  67. Marc Montoni

    When Capozzi invokes the word “neo-confederates” he is using it as a pejorative directed at people who are anti-war, such as myself. Anyone who doesn’t agree that the with him that Lincoln was the fearless Great Emancipator, and that the North was the knight in shining armor come to save the poor slaves, according to Capozzi is a neo-confederate.

    I’ve been sucked into the conversation with him on several occasions and it’s been an utter and complete waste of my time, every time.

    In my opinion, it is Capozzi himself who is the reason why the LP doesn’t have more minority members. The fact is that he has nothing but criticism for the efforts of others, and does nothing himself. The road is wide open for him to recruit a legion of minority members. No one is stopping him, least of all me.

    I’d put $100 on the table that I have recruited more members who were any one of the following:

    a) female
    b) black
    c) asian
    d) gay
    e) young
    f) old

    … than Capozzi has.

    I have recruited hundreds of people into the LP, mostly just by being ready with a membership form. The content of their character and the color of their skin may have been different than Capozzi’s, but I got them into the LP nevertheless.

    Capozzi, once again, has injected his statist views of the Civil War into a discussion which really had nothing to do with the topic. I am definitely not going to bother dissecting Capozzi’s arguments yet again; his positions are no more researched now than they were in the past. Suffice it to say that I disagree with almost all of the written-by-the-victors history about slavery and the Civil War.

    For previous iterations of this discussion, I’ll refer the reader who wants to view an alternative take on the Civil War to read these prior comments.

    Here is a fairly extensive one.

  68. Robert Capozzi

    81 MM, the record shows that I DID NOT “invoke” the word “neo-confederates.” I DID repeat Knapp’s use of the term.

    I don’t believe that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator, to be clear, so again, please get your facts straight. The truth will set you free. Rather, I make a rather narrow and unassailable Constitutional point that “secession” is not in the document and “insurrection” is.

    Clarifying again, my view is that the USG (not just Lincoln) made a determination that the “CSA” was an insurrectionist movement. In retrospect, I agree, but I don’t agree with some of the means they employed to put down the insurrection.

    I’m sorry you feel communicating with me is a waste of time. I would say that since you continue to deflect my main, unassailable point, I can only hope that onlookers will see your tactics for what they are: deflections. I have repeatedly stated that the revisionist interpretation of the Confederate Elite Insurrection has some merit, but that there were many cross-currents at the time that amassed into a horrific storm.

    I stipulate that you have recruited more than I have. What I frankly don’t understand is why you make this personal. I thought we were having a broader conversation about why blacks are disproportionately represented in the LM.

    There’s much wisdom in the term, “Physician, heal thyself.” The sick physician does no one any good.

  69. Andy

    “I don’t believe that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator, to be clear, so again, please get your facts straight. The truth will set you free. Rather, I make a rather narrow and unassailable Constitutional point that secession’ is not in the document and ‘insurrection’ is.”

    The Southern states tried to secede peacefully. It was the North that caused the situation to turn violent. Lincoln did not want to let go of all of the tax revenue that the South coming in from the South.

    So I don’t think that what the South did was an insurrection, nor was it really even a Civil War.

    None of this means that the Confederacy was perfect, because it was not.

  70. Andy

    I really think that this Civil War issue is more of a distraction than anything else, because it has little or nothing to do with why the LP is mostly made up of white males.

    As I said above, I could certainly see a black person being put off by talk of the Founding Fathers or the Civil War IF THEY DO NOT LISTEN LONG ENOUGH TO SEE WHERE LIBERTARIANS ARE COMING FROM, but I really do not think that this is a primary reason why there are not more black people in the LP.

    The Libertarian Party also has a shortage of women (including white women), Asians, hispanics (and I’m talking about non-white hispanics, a white person with a Spanish name does not count for the purpose of this discussion), etc…

    Libertarians are going to have to bring in a greater cross section of people if we ever want to be successful.

  71. Andy

    “Lincoln did not want to let go of all of the tax revenue that the South coming in from the South. ”

    Should read, “Lincoln did not want to let go of all of the tax revenue that was coming in from the South.”

  72. Robert Capozzi

    Depends what you mean by “peacefully,” Andy. Many of the Confederate Elites ginned up ordnances of what they called “secession” in which they explicitly cited their desire to maintain the institution of slavery in perpetuity. I consider slavery an act of coercion, so I would not call that “peaceful.”

    Language can be quite elastic.

  73. Michael H. Wilson

    @ 83 Andy do you have a source for this comment you make, Lincoln did not want to let go of all of the tax revenue that the South coming in from the South ?

  74. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Feb 12, 2013 at 11:52 am

    Depends what you mean by ‘peacefully,’ Andy. Many of the Confederate Elites ginned up ordnances of what they called ‘secession’ in which they explicitly cited their desire to maintain the institution of slavery in perpetuity. I consider slavery an act of coercion, so I would not call that “peaceful.”

    Oh geez, I thought that we ALREADY COVERED THIS.

    There were slaves states that were a part of the union while the Civil War was taking place. Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were some of them.

    Lincoln supported an amendment to the Constitution that said that the institution of slavery would not be interred with, and he also admitted that his purpose in waging the war was to preserve the Union, and that if he could do it without freeing one slave he would do it, or if he could do it by freeing all of the slaves he’d do it, or if he could to it by freeing some of the slaves while keeping others in slavery that he’d do that.

    There were also Southerners who used the slavery issue for propaganda purposes, but the fact of the matter is that the main cause of the war was taxation, as is documented by Thomas DiLorenzo in the video link I posted above.

    So yes, the South tried to peacefully secede, and the North caused the situation to turn violent.

  75. Andy

    “Michael H. Wilson // Feb 12, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    @ 83 Andy do you have a source for this comment you make, Lincoln did not want to let go of all of the tax revenue that the South coming in from the South?”

    So now you want me to do all of your homework for you?

  76. Andy

    Marc Montoni said: “I’ve been sucked into the conversation with him on several occasions and it’s been an utter and complete waste of my time, every time.

    In my opinion, it is Capozzi himself who is the reason why the LP doesn’t have more minority members. The fact is that he has nothing but criticism for the efforts of others, and does nothing himself. The road is wide open for him to recruit a legion of minority members. No one is stopping him, least of all me.”

    Marc Montoni makes some excellent points here.

    All of this talk about the Civil War is a distraction issue that is of little relevance.

    The fact of the matter is that this has little to do with why there are not more black people in the Libertarian Party, and it has got NOTHING to do with why there are not more women in the LP, or more hispanics, or more Asians, or more people from any background in general in the LP, including more white males.

    If anything, this bickering about minutia is one of the reasons that there are not more people in the LP.

  77. Robert Capozzi

    Andy, right, the slave states that didn’t insurrect were not put down (although MD’s slaver elites wanted to follow suit with the other slaver elites).

    Lincoln was one guy. Most of Congress also wanted to preserve the Union and the rule of law. And, rather than continue the decades-long negotiation over slavery, the slaver elites invented a facade/sham justification for their real motive, which was to keep their chattel unchallenged.

    Neither of us can prove why the LM is small, and odds are high there are many reasons. Taking a fringey path of extremism

  78. Robert Capozzi

    …seems like the single biggest one to me. Associating with positions and analysis that is held by the hater, hard right seems especially toxic with the African American community.

  79. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Feb 12, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    Andy, right, the slave states that didn’t insurrect were not put down (although MD’s slaver elites wanted to follow suit with the other slaver elites).

    Lincoln was one guy. Most of Congress also wanted to preserve the Union and the rule of law. And, rather than continue the decades-long negotiation over slavery, the slaver elites invented a facade/sham justification for their real motive, which was to keep their chattel unchallenged.”

    I don’t think that any of the states really “insurrected,” they seceded.

    I think that a better way of stating what you said above is that Lincoln and most of Congress wanted to keep the tax revenue from the South flowing to DC. I do not believe that they were really concerned about the “rule of law” (other than to pay taxes), because if they were they would not have violated the Constitution.

    If you watch the video of Thomas DiLorenzo that I posted above, he goes through all of the facts about the long battle over tariffs and excise taxes, of which the South was disproportionately effected. Do you think that Thomas DiLorenzo is making this stuff up? I’ve researched this stuff myself and I think that he is correct.

    Racism was rampant in the North, and Abraham Lincoln made many racist comments himself. This fact is concealed, and the fact that it is concealed should tell you something about what their real motives were.

  80. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “Neither of us can prove why the LM is small, and odds are high there are many reasons. Taking a fringey path of extremism.”

    I think that I myself and Marc Montoni have laid out a much more solid case than anyone else.

    “…seems like the single biggest one to me. Associating with positions and analysis that is held by the hater, hard right seems especially toxic with the African American community.”

    This is absurd. Most black people have no idea what libertarians think about the causes of the Civil War. This is NOT even a part of the Libertarian Party’s platform.

    Also, there are black people who have heard the stance held by many libertarians on this issue, and who actually end up agreeing with it. Once again, check out DL Hughley’s interview with Ron Paul that I posted above. DL Hughley responded positively to Ron Paul and said that he makes a lot of sense, and this included Ron’s response to the Civil War question.

    The evidence is pretty clear to me that this issue has little to do with why there are not more black people in the LP, and it certainly has NOTHING to do with why there are not more non-black women, more hispanics, more Asians, etc….

  81. Andy

    “I think that I myself and Marc Montoni have laid out a much more solid case than anyone else.”

    Should read, “I think that the case that Marc Montoni and I laid out makes a much more solid case than what anyone else has said on the subject (as to why the LP primarily consists of white males).”

  82. Wes Wagner

    The core of why there are few black people in the LP is that a large % of the people who are in leadership positions are bigots and racists, and no matter how much we deny it, it is actually true.

    Additionally they are frequently misogynists too.

    Change that, and we will see the demographics change.

    Strangely we have a large number of homophobes as well.

    The perversity of the Libertarian Party is overwhelming. I have been fighting to change it… and it has been rough.

  83. Andy

    “96 Wes Wagner // Feb 12, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    The core of why there are few black people in the LP is that a large % of the people who are in leadership positions are bigots and racists, and no matter how much we deny it, it is actually true.

    Additionally they are frequently misogynists too.

    Change that, and we will see the demographics change.

    Strangely we have a large number of homophobes as well.”

    I do not agree with this at all. I’ve been in the LP since 1996 and there are very few people that I’ve ever encountered in the LP that could even remotely be described as being bigots of any variety.

    It looks like Marc Montoni and I are the only voices of reason here.

  84. Wes Wagner

    Andy @97

    Odd, I have run into a huge number of them. Even just recently in Vegas.

    Perhaps you are not seeing what all our non-existent minorities and women are seeing.

  85. Andy

    If anything, I think that one is more likely to find bigots in the Republican and Democratic parties than they are in the Libertarian Party, yet the Republican and Democratic parties are much larger than the LP is.

    Also, I’ve done lots of Libertarian outreach to diverse groups of people, and I’ve rarely heard racism or bigotry mentioned as reasons for people not joining or supporting the LP, except of course if the person brining it up is a racist or a bigot and they do not like the LP because they want to use government to bash whatever group they oppose.

    I already mentioned the common objections I’ve gotten from black people about the LP, and they are no different from the objections I get from white people.

    I’ve never once had a black person mention the view of some libertarians about the root causes of the Civil War as being an objection to not joining or supporting the LP.

    Every once in a while I have gotten objections over the Libertarian Party not supporting Affirmative Action, but not every black person supports or even cares about Affirmative Action.

  86. Andy

    “Wes Wagner // Feb 12, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    Andy @97

    Odd, I have run into a huge number of them. Even just recently in Vegas.

    Perhaps you are not seeing what all our non-existent minorities and women are seeing.”

    Perhaps you over amplify the few examples you’ve seen.

    I’ve been to numerous Libertarian meetings around the country and I think that you are more likely to find “politically correct” anti-racist people in the LP than you are to find anyone who could even remotely be labeled as a racist.

  87. Green_Liberal

    [quote]If you watch the video of Thomas DiLorenzo that I posted above, he goes through all of the facts about the long battle over tariffs and excise taxes, of which the South was disproportionately effected. Do you think that Thomas DiLorenzo is making this stuff up? I’ve researched this stuff myself and I think that he is correct. [/quote]

    The Morill Tarrif was passed by the Buchanan administration, not Lincoln. While it was one of the South’s grievances, it does not come up in South Carolina’s initial list of grievances, while slavery features prominently.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

    Experts of the period almost universally agree that the tariff issue was not a major cause of the war, though it featured prominently in Lost Cause historiography. In the above presentation, I don’t recall Di Lorenzo mentioning any viewpoint besides his own. Isn’t it important for an academic in a presentation to give an honest account of what the historiography actually says?

    While we’re on the subject of Di Lorenzo’s intellectual dishonesty, what about how he uses Lysander Spooner as a token abolitionist Lincoln opponent? We are talking about the same Spooner who was a friend and vociferous supporter of John Brown. Spooner had no issue with violently overthrowing the South and freeing the slaves–he objected to Lincoln’s goals and methods. When Di Lorenzo refers to “No Treason”, he is referring to a document that says the Constitution is invalid. Is Di Lorenzo prepared to defend Spooner’s actual positions at his next white supremacist rally?

    [quote]So yes, the South tried to peacefully secede, and the North caused the situation to turn violent.[/quote]

    What will inevitably turn off any African-American with a brain about that statement is the idea that since slavery was common at the time, a new slave republic should have been allowed, because the secession was ‘peaceful’ (actually it wasn’t). As Capozzi pointed out, slavery exists via injustice and violence. The question of the justifiability of secession is a good one, but it’s less relevant to judging Lincoln’s actions then the consideration that a slave republic in the South over the long term was intolerable.

    “Racism was rampant in the North, and Abraham Lincoln made many racist comments himself. This fact is concealed, and the fact that it is concealed should tell you something about what their real motives were.”

    One of the funniest parts of that video is after Di Lorenzo has huffed and puffed about how Lincoln is an evil and mendacious and racist dude, he basically argues that Lincoln’s views on race were the normal ones at the time. So the best he can do to back up the assertion that Lincoln was a racist was to point to speeches where Lincoln (the politician!) expressed views on race that were mainstream.

    Actually, he is likely wrong on that too. Even if Lincoln’s actual views were closer to a “Whig” or “Free-Soil” ideology than an “Abolitionist” ideology, the Free-Soil and Whig ideologies were less overtly racist then that expressed by Democrats of the era.

  88. Andy

    I’ve also rarely heard racism or bigotry in the LP as an objection to people not joining or supporting the LP, as in, “I’m not supporting them because they are racist or bigots.”

  89. Inquiring Mind

    a large % of the people who are in leadership positions are bigots and racists

    Names and evidence, please.

  90. Free Soil Party

    From our 1848 platform:

    Congress has no more power to make a slave, than to make a king. We have assembled in conventions as a union of freemen, for the sake of freedom, forgetting all past political differences in a common resolve to maintain the rights of free labor, against the aggressions of the slave power, and to secure free soil for a free people.

    The free grant to actual settlers of reasonable portions of the public lands, under suitable limitations, is a wise and just public policy. Let the soil of our extensive domains be ever kept free for the hardy pioneers of our own land, and the oppressed and banished of other lands, seeking homes of comfort and fields of enterprise in the new world.

    We the people, here assembled, remembering the example of our fathers in the days of the first declaration of independence, do now plant ourselves on the national platform of freedom. We will inscribe on our banner ”Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men”, and under it will fight on, and fight ever, until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions.

  91. Andy

    Here’s a video of a black guy who is a hardcore libertarian protesting at an Obama event. This made some headlines because he carried his AR-15 “assault rifle” to the protest. This happened back in 2009 before the recent gun control controversy. Arizona has better gun laws (from a libertarian perspective) than most states, so this was actually legal in Arizona. He brought the gun to the protest to make a statement. This guy is one of the young activist that took part in Ernie Hancock’s Freedom Phoenix Workshop.

    I met this guy when I was in Arizona a few years ago and he’s a cool dude.

  92. Green_Liberal

    From the South Carolina declaration of Causes

    “The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

    These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

    We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume 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.

    For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

    This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

    On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

    The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. “

  93. Wes Wagner

    IM @103

    Go experience it for yourself. I am not going to accuse people by name for things that are so difficult to prove when I have had issues taking people in this party to task for … say… using a party debit card to buy 3 meals a day, oil changes for your car and groceries for your apartment.

    The willingness of people in this party to tolerate, excuse, or otherwise overlook and ignore behavior when it is being perpetrated by “their crook” is also a main reason why a large member of non-members are non-members.

    They show up, realize our shit stinks and they walk out and you never hear why.

  94. Andy

    “What will inevitably turn off any African-American with a brain about that statement is the idea that since slavery was common at the time, a new slave republic should have been allowed, because the secession was ‘peaceful’ (actually it wasn’t).”

    This is an ridiculous statement. When the USA seceded from England it was a republic that had slaves. Also, there were states that did not secede from the Union that had slaves (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, the newly (and unconstitutionally) formed state of West Virginia, and I’m pretty sure New Jersey had slaves as well). There were even slaves at the time in Washington DC!

    Here is another point, the Confederate Constitution actually BANNED the importation of slaves from outside of the Confederacy. This is a fact which conveniently gets swept under the rug.

    Another interesting fact is that a lot of the ships that transported slaves were based in the North.

  95. Andy

    And once again, all of this historical discussion has little to do with why there are not more black people in the LP.

  96. Andy

    “Wes Wagner // Feb 12, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    IM @103

    Go experience it for yourself. I am not going to accuse people by name for things that are so difficult to prove when I have had issues taking people in this party to task for … say… using a party debit card to buy 3 meals a day, oil changes for your car and groceries for your apartment.”

    I was at the LP National Convention in Las Vegas and I think that you are exaggerating.

  97. Andy

    I should be more clear by adding that I think that you are exaggerating with your charges of racism & bigotry in the LP.

  98. Green_Liberal

    @99 most of my friends are liberals and lefties and they cannot understand my admiration for Ron Paul. I tell them that if they put around 6 hours into researching Paul they would change their minds. But the fact is, in the unconscious of the masses, Paul and Libertarianism are associated with greed and white supremacy.

    A common assertion is the Libertarian Party is a party for privileged white people. Either that, or Ayn Rand’s (sometimes batty) viewpoints are identified with libertarianism.

    I can empathize with the plight of Libertarians because the Green Party is similarly misconstrued among the masses as a party of hippies, dreamers and socialists, when in fact the Green platform is quite rational and there is plenty of empirical evidence from European nations to back up Green policy prescriptions.

  99. Green_Liberal

    @109 yet another interesting fact, slave importation was banned around 1810.

    All you have to do to satisfy me is admit that the overwelming preponderance of evidence points to the institution of slavery as the first cause of secession.

    All Ron Paul and the Libertarian leadership need to do to satisfy Americans is condemn the Confederacy and its leadership for what it was–wrongheaded, racist and evil.

  100. Andy

    Here is another video of the black guy who is a hardcore libertarian who brought a gun to an Obama protest back in 2009.

  101. Andy

    “Green_Liberal // Feb 12, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    @109 yet another interesting fact, slave importation was banned around 1810.

    All you have to do to satisfy me is admit that the overwelming preponderance of evidence points to the institution of slavery as the first cause of secession.”

    I’ve looked into the issue a lot and I don’t believe that this is what the historic record indicates. I’m not going to admit to something that is not true.

    “All Ron Paul and the Libertarian leadership need to do to satisfy Americans is condemn the Confederacy and its leadership for what it was–wrongheaded, racist and evil.”

    I don’t know of anyone in the Libertarian Party that favors slavery or who thinks that slavery should be legal, and Ron Paul does not think this either.

  102. Wes Wagner

    Andy @112

    Until you are willing to admit there is a problem (which our objective demographics tend to indicate) arguing with you would be like telling an alcoholic that they drink too much.

    I am not going to convince you no matter what I say… but the problem is and will remain.

  103. Andy

    “Wes Wagner // Feb 12, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    Andy @112

    Until you are willing to admit there is a problem (which our objective demographics tend to indicate) arguing with you would be like telling an alcoholic that they drink too much.

    I am not going to convince you no matter what I say… but the problem is and will remain.”

    I do not believe that you have sufficient facts to back up your claims.

    I can back up what I say from doing significant amounts of field outreach, both as a petitioner and just doing general outreach. I have petitioned in predominantly black neighborhoods in places like Baltimore, MD, Chicago, IL, Washington DC, etc…

    You made the claim that there were lots of racist people at the LP National Convention in Las Vegas last year. Who were these people? I was there and I do not recall hearing one racist comment.

    What percent of people at the LP National Convention in Las Vegas do you believe were racists or bigots?

    Also, can you provide any evidence to back this up?

  104. Robert Capozzi

    Andy, it’s Congress and the Executive branch’s prerogative to assess what constitutes an insurrection, with the ability to appeal via the courts. Since “secession” does not appear in the Constitution, that’s not Congress’s purview.

    DiLorenzo cherry picks. Yes, tariffs were a longstanding matter. So was slavery…even he admits this. You and he overcomplicate the issue.

    Putting down insurrections is an enumerated explicit power. They did so.

    You have to grant that…it’s in black and white!

    Next.

  105. wredlich

    Maybe the reason there are so few black (and Hispanic and women) libertarians is because we spend all of our time arguing with each other about history and not enough talking to others about the future.

    As for bigots, racists, and misogynists, the major parties have those too. Maybe they’re a little better at hiding it, but only a little.

  106. Wes Wagner

    wredlich@120

    Correct… they have plenty. The problem is that as a 3rd party if we do not offer extraordinary value and vision, we are worthless.

    If you have to deal with petty corruption, misogyny, racism (both explicit and soft bigotry), homophobia and anti-gay members, etc… then why work with a 3rd party if you get all the liabilities and no true vision for a better future?

  107. Andy

    “Wes Wagner // Feb 12, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    wredlich@120

    Correct… they have plenty. The problem is that as a 3rd party if we do not offer extraordinary value and vision, we are worthless.

    If you have to deal with petty corruption, misogyny, racism (both explicit and soft bigotry), homophobia and anti-gay members, etc… then why work with a 3rd party if you get all the liabilities and no true vision for a better future?”

    I do not think that the average Libertarian Party member or small “l” libertarian is a racist or a bigot. I’d say that any who fit this description at all are a minority within the movement.

    Having said this, the libertarian philosophy actually can accommodate racists and bigots just as long as they do not advocate the initiation of force or fraud as a part of their racism or bigotry.

    Also, it should be mentioned that white males do not have a monopoly on racism and bigotry. Racists and bigots come in all races, ethnicities, religions, etc…

  108. Andy

    “wredlich // Feb 12, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    Maybe the reason there are so few black (and Hispanic and women) libertarians is because we spend all of our time arguing with each other about history and not enough talking to others about the future.”

    BINGO!

  109. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “Putting down insurrections is an enumerated explicit power. They did so.”

    What you call an insurrection others would call a secession.

    Is there anything in the Constitution that says that states can not secede? This country’s founding document – the Declaration of Independence – was all about secession.

    It seems a bit hypocritical to me that a country that was founded on the principle of secession would later act as though secession was illegal.

  110. Robert Capozzi

    Andy, iirc, the Declaration does not use the word “secession,” either. It is about self determination, in that case, for colonies. There were lawful options available to the people of the states that felt aggrieved by the US government, options they did not exercise. Instead, elites in those states invented an extra-constitutional process to break free of the US, with their chattel in their possession.

    That invention failed miserably.

    As for the internal bickering, I would LOVE to table this issue. Unfortunately, a vocal subset of the LM, led by the LRC crowd, won’t let this issue go. They promote revisionism with a vengeance.

    Take it up with them!

  111. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Feb 12, 2013 at 6:51 pm

    Andy, iirc, the Declaration does not use the word ‘secession,’ either. It is about self determination, in that case, for colonies. There were lawful options available to the people of the states that felt aggrieved by the US government, options they did not exercise. Instead, elites in those states invented an extra-constitutional process to break free of the US, with their chattel in their possession.”

    The Declaration of Independence may not have used the word secession, but this is what the colonists were doing, they were seceding or withdrawing from England.

    Your view toward the Confederacy seems a lot like the view of King George toward the 13 original colonies.

    “That invention failed miserably.”

    Yes, it failed because of the initiation of force and fraud perpetrated by the federal government under Abraham Lincoln, one of the most – if not the most – overrated Presidents in American history.

    “As for the internal bickering, I would LOVE to table this issue. Unfortunately, a vocal subset of the LM, led by the LRC crowd, won’t let this issue go. They promote revisionism with a vengeance.

    Take it up with them!”

    You are the one who brought it up here. As this relates to the Libertarian Party, this is not a part of the Libertarian Party platform.

    You act as though what a lot of libertarians who are also history buffs think about the root causes of the Civil War has some big effect on why there are not more black people in the Libertarian Party. I think that this issue is only a minor issue for why there are not more black people in the Libertarian Party.

    I’ve already covered above what I think that the major reasons are, the biggest of which is a lack of outreach, and particularly a lack of outreach to people on the left and to independent and non-voters.

    I personally have done lots of outreach to diverse groups of people, including many black people. I don’t recall ever running into one black person who said anything like, “Libertarians! Oh, you all are the ones who don’t think that slavery was the main reason for the Civil War, and you think that states have the right to secede. The heck with you!”

    After talking about politics, and the Libertarian Party or libertarianism in general with literally thousands of black people (both male and female), I’ve NEVER gotten a response like that anywhere in the country.

    I have run into black people who favor Affirmative Action, and who do not like the fact that libertarians oppose it (although even with them, there are other issues that they may agree with libertarians on), but even with Affirmative Action, not every black person supports Affirmative Action, and not every black person even cares about the issue.

    There are still a lot of people out there, black, white, hispanic, Asian, etc…, who do not even know what the Libertarian Party is, or what a libertarian is, or that have heard of it but have misconceptions about it (as in they think that it has something to do with Lyndon LaRouche or Ralph Nader or something or somebody else with which it has nothing to do).

    Questions for Robert Capozzi: How much effort have you put into recruiting new people into the Libertarian Party / movement?

    Do you do any outreach to people who are outside of your demographic (if you do any at all)?

  112. Robert Capozzi

    Andy, I attempted to fix the foundational dysfunctions in 2006 by deleting the word “secession,” the private nukes clause, and other fringy notions from the platform, and voted to delete or hack the extremisms in the SoP. That effort led to mixed results.

    Still suffering from a flawed thought system, my interest in the LP in this form is largely academic entertainment. I do vote L.

    It feels masochistic for me to promote the LP, but I support your efforts if you find them to be fulfilling.

  113. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Feb 12, 2013 at 7:43 pm

    Andy, I attempted to fix the foundational dysfunctions in 2006 by deleting the word “secession,” the private nukes clause, and other fringy notions from the platform, and voted to delete or hack the extremisms in the SoP. That effort led to mixed results.

    Still suffering from a flawed thought system, my interest in the LP in this form is largely academic entertainment. I do vote L.

    It feels masochistic for me to promote the LP, but I support your efforts if you find them to be fulfilling.”

    So in other words, you engaged in a lot of mental masterbation, but no real world outreach to build the party and movement.

    Oh well, at least you are honest about it.

    THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY AND MOVEMENT IS NOT BIGGER, AND WHY THERE ARE NOT MORE WOMEN, BLACK PEOPLE, HISPANIC PEOPLE, ASIAN PEOPLE, ETC…, INVOLVED IN IT.

    If you want a bigger Libertarian Party and movement, you’ve got to build it, and the only way to build it is by doing a lot more outreach, and it needs to be done among diverse groups of people.

  114. Robert Capozzi

    Andy, yes, honesty is the first and most important step, I agree. In fact, it would be DIShonest for me to promote this damaged-at-the-core LP, since it is dedicated to challenging an alleged cult of a non-existent and undesired-by-anyone omnipotent state. It is filled with many who, at the drop of a hat, spew the revisionist line with no thought about how others may react. It is held out as Gospel Truth, and in my case I’m not buying this new set of doctrinal myths.

    I simply disagree with you about building it. The LP and LM are built on sand, IMO. Deontological absolutism is a foundation that has failed and I see no reason to believe it could ever work as the basis for any political (or any other) philosophical thought system. It doesn’t work.

    For it to be worth my time, I’d need to see a shrugging off the absolutism.

    In the meantime, as I said, this is academic entertainment for me. Thanks for strutting and fretting on my stage!

  115. Andy

    Robert Capozzi: “In the meantime, as I said, this is academic entertainment for me. Thanks for strutting and fretting on my stage!”

    You and I obviously have a big difference in the way we view this political stuff. This is all just academic entertainment for you, but for me I’m in it to win it. I want more liberty, and I want it to happen IN MY LIFE TIME, and AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I see this as a battle, with totalitarian statism on one side, and individual liberty on the other side. I don’t want to be an old man and wake up in the morning living in an authoritarian police state, and then think to myself, “I wish I had done more to stop this from happening when I had the opportunity.” If those of us who are in the pro-liberty movement do not shift the direction that society is headed toward away from big government and in the direction of personal freedom, then I think that we could be in for some bad things happening down the road. This is not a mere “academic game” for me, but rather a struggle for our lives (even if the government doesn’t take your life, a life without liberty is not very fulfilling). So I obviously take this stuff with a greater sense of urgency than you do.

    Is the Libertarian Party the be all and end all in the pro-liberty movement? No. I consider the Libertarian Party to be a tool to use in the struggle, but it is not the only tool. I also support pro-liberty people running for office under different party banners or as independents, and I also support pro-liberty ballot initiatives and referendums, pro-liberty lobbying groups, pro-liberty educational groups, etc… I also favor tactics that are outside of electoral politics, such as jury nullification of victimless crimes, alternative currencies (gold, silver, Bitcoins, etc…), teaching people how to defend themselves in court, counter-economics, dropping out of the tax system, and even stocking up on guns and ammunition to prepare for armed revolt. I see the Libertarian Party as a means of building up resistance to the state by getting the message out, and if we can elect some people along the way then great. The political system in this country is a rigged game in a lot of ways, but I do think that we still stand of decent chance of electing Libertarians to lower level offices (city and county offices, and seats in state legislatures are all within striking distance). Can the Libertarian Party elect people to higher level offices? I don’t know, but I do know that the higher level the office the less chance we’ve got. Regardless of whether or not the Libertarian Party elects anyone to office, it is still a good way to get the message out and build up resistance to the state. The answer may come outside of electoral politics, but in the mean time the Libertarian Party can help point people in the right direction.

  116. Robert Capozzi

    Andy, thanks for sharing your view. I don’t share your sense of urgency, actually, although I do certainly agree that the nation could use a LOT more liberty.

    As constituted, the LM seems like it is its own worst enemy. Indeed, until recently, the LP was for private nukes (implicitly), which IMO would make a bad situation worse. As a former professional L myself, I can relate to your thought patterns, but I came to the conclusion that I could not make a difference politically and that Ls generally were making liberty UNattractive by adopting and clinging to severely insane ideas.

    Being Chicken Little raving about non-existent “cults” wanting the government to be “omnipotent” (a word that is grokked by maybe 5% of the population) does a disservice to the very idea of liberty, IMO.

    Understand, though, this is just my opinion and assessment. I claim no super-powers in this regard. Carry on your fight if it makes you happy!

    Like Chance Gardener, I like to watch….

  117. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Feb 13, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    Andy, thanks for sharing your view. I don’t share your sense of urgency, actually, although I do certainly agree that the nation could use a LOT more liberty.”

    You claim that you want more liberty, yet it seems as though you are doing little to achieve this goal. How do you expect to get more liberty if you sit back and do nothing?

    I don’t see this as a game or some kind of parlor chat or social hour. This is about our lives and our future.

    “As a former professional L myself, I can relate to your thought patterns, but I came to the conclusion that I could not make a difference politically and that Ls generally were making liberty UNattractive by adopting and clinging to severely insane ideas.”

    Then why do you bother getting involved at all? This sounds like a defeatist attitude for me. If you don’t like the way that most Libertarians are doing things then start up your own thing. Do things the Robert Capozzi way and if you start to have success maybe others will follow your lead.

    “Carry on your fight if it makes you happy!”

    I’m not in this because it makes me happy. I’m involved because I don’t see any other choice. We either stop the relentless growth of government and start making radical reductions in it, or the government keeps getting bigger and bigger until this country turns into a high tech version of something like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. We can either stop it right now while we still have a chance, or we can keep pussy footing around until things get so bad that we may not be able to stop it. I believe that we still have the means to turn things around, but it is going to take a lot of hard work. The harder that we work now, the less screwed we’ll be when the shit hits the fan, or maybe we can turn things around before the shit hits the fan.

    “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”? Samuel Adams

  118. Robert Capozzi

    a: You claim that you want more liberty, yet it seems as though you are doing little to achieve this goal.

    me: No, I didn’t say I “want” or I have a “goal,” for I don’t. I said the nation could use more liberty. I do what seems indicated in the moment. You could say I have “goals” — I’d like to see Talking Heads reunite. I’d like David Lynch to come out of retirement and make another movie. And I’d like to see the Giants return to the Super Bowl. I suppose I COULD campaign to make these things happen, too, but they don’t seem indicated for me at this time.

    a: This is about our lives and our future.

    me: Life is lived in the moment, and the future will take care of itself. How can it be any other way?

    a: This sounds like a defeatist attitude for me.

    me: I prefer to think of it as a non-resistant attitude. It is what it is, kinda thing.

    a: Do things the Robert Capozzi way and if you start to have success maybe others will follow your lead.

    me: Discerning what is indicated is no easy task, but a good rule of thumb is return on investment. For ex,, the effort required to delete the private nukes clause and the toxic word “secession” from the platform took hundreds of person-hours. We had a great candidate in Gary Johnson, and the dude took – and is taking – tremendous amounts of static. Flow away from the static is my mantra.

    a: I’m not in this because it makes me happy. I’m involved because I don’t see any other choice.

    me: And how’s that working out for you? You’ve spent, what, 10 years maybe…nose to the grindstone. The state is bigger. Liberty is in decline.

    Still, if it seems indicated for you, then by all means, knock yourself out!

  119. Marc Montoni

    “Those who profess to favor freedom, yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue til they have resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they suppress.”

    Frederick Douglass, American Abolitionist, Letter to an associate, 1849

  120. Robert Capozzi

    mm 138, nice words. I don’t depreciate agitation, I’m for it if it is indicated. I don’t support agitation for dysfunctional ideas or paradigmatic approaches, to be clear. I would support agitating for a TAAAL-ist approach, but so far there are maybe 5 of us.

    Wasn’t Douglass a supporter of the US’s efforts to put down the Confederate Elite Insurrection, btw?

  121. Marc Montoni

    No one’s perfect.

    A lot of so-called “pacifists” of the time took their white gloves off when the northern military started breaking kneecaps. Garrison, for instance.

    Advocating for ending slavery on the one hand, then contributing to the wanton murder of 600,000 people, the maiming of a million more, the indiscriminate shelling of a million people without regard to whether they were young, old, free, slave, black, white, male or female, and the mass-scale rape of a generation of southern girls and women…

    Like I said… no one’s perfect.

    Not even those who bark approvingly of institutionalized mass murder.

  122. Robert Capozzi

    mm 140, true dat…no one’s perfect.

    I btw don’t approved of “institutionalized mass murder” OR “institutionalized chattel slavery.”

    There were MANY excesses in putting down the Confederate Elite Insurrection. Unfortunately, police actions sometimes lead to unnecessary deaths of bystanders and non-insurrectionists.

  123. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: “I btw don’t approved of ‘institutionalized mass murder’ OR ‘institutionalized chattel slavery.’”

    This is the same position as Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Thomas DiLorenzo, Andrew Napolitano, Tom Woods, and a lot of other libertarians.

    This is one of the reasons that we (I count myself among them) point out that chattel slavery could have been ended peacefully, such as by abolitionists buying slaves and setting them free, etc…

    “There were MANY excesses in putting down the Confederate Elite Insurrection. Unfortunately, police actions sometimes lead to unnecessary deaths of bystanders and non-insurrectionists.”

    Why don’t you refer to it, or at least the North’s role in it, as the Union Elite Suppression? You act as though the Union leaders were not elitists, and hypocrites, and that they did not have any ulterior motives.

  124. Robert Capozzi

    a, yes, it does seem possible that slavery could’ve been ended. It’s also possible the murder CAN be ended. Unfortunately, the regions that claimed to be “seceding” were doing their level best to maintain the institution AT ALL COSTS. Given their lack of resources, that they fought back when the US attempted to put down the insurrection that the CSA was in a state of collective derangement. They KNEW they were severely outgunned and outmanned. They were whipped into a frenzy by propagandists, who were themselves suffering from a bunker mentality.

    Bringing the point back home to this article, saying something like: “Oh, slavery might have ended in decades had the US just let the Insurrectionists steal half the country,” seems like a poor position to take IF one wants to attract those slaves’s descendants. I think you’ve concurred with my view on this.

    I certainly agree that the US government officials were conflicted, often hypocritical, and all over the map in terms of their intentions re: putting down the Insurrection. DiLorenzo especially likes to set this argument up this way: Anyone who doesn’t agree with his (warped) take on the Insurrection is a “Lincoln idolator.” I’m not. Lincoln was one guy, a deeply conflicted guy thrust into a very challenging situation. What DiLorenzo doesn’t seem to recognize is that most of the Congress was more or less on board with putting down the Insurrection. He sets up a highly distorted narrative to make a very narrow point that misses a wide range of other considerations. This narrative is poison politically. We saw how poisonous it was when Ron Paul was on Meet the Press in 08.

    Being “peaceful” does not equal “allowing lawlessness to go unchecked.” Most unfortunately, checking the lawlessness of the Insurrection went into cascade failure. But at least the outcome was cleansing (if bloody), as chattel slavery was ended in a few years vs. a few decades.

  125. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy @ 142,

    “chattel slavery could have been ended peacefully, such as by abolitionists buying slaves and setting them free”

    While I agree that chattel slavery could have been ended peacefully (it was in other countries), it certainly couldn’t have been ended peacefully in that way.

    Increased demand for a good encourages increased production of that good.

  126. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp // Feb 15, 2013 at 7:40 am

    Andy @ 142,

    “chattel slavery could have been ended peacefully, such as by abolitionists buying slaves and setting them free”

    While I agree that chattel slavery could have been ended peacefully (it was in other countries), it certainly couldn’t have been ended peacefully in that way.

    Increased demand for a good encourages increased production of that good.”

    The importation of new slaves had already been banned, and once again, the Confederate Constitution actually banned the importation of slaves from outside of the Confederacy. This would indicate that people in the South, or at least most of the people in the South, did not want more slaves.

  127. robert capozzi

    Andy, really, it would indicate THAT? I’d think it indicates that the slavers were coming under increasing pressure to wind down the peculiar institution.

    Is there evidence, esp. in the plantation states, that there was a widely held recognition among the Elites that their way of doing business would need to come to an end?

    Read the Ordnances of Secession…many cited the desire to keep their slaves as an explicit motive for their “secessions”/insurrections.

  128. Andy

    “robert capozzi // Feb 15, 2013 at 8:41 pm

    Andy, really, it would indicate THAT? I’d think it indicates that the slavers were coming under increasing pressure to wind down the peculiar institution.”

    This falls into what I said, and was a reason that chattel slavery was on a decline at that point anyway.

  129. Andy

    “Read the Ordnances of Secession…many cited the desire to keep their slaves as an explicit motive for their ‘secessions’/insurrections.”

    I read several of them a long time ago and I think that they were using that as propaganda to fan the flames of racism.

    Lincoln supported an amendment to the Constitution that said that the institution of slavery would never be interfered with, yet the South seceded anyway. This is because the main reason for secession was taxation. The South were paying a disproportionate share of the tariffs and excise taxes.

  130. Steven R Linnabary

    “Is there evidence, esp. in the plantation states, that there was a widely held recognition among the Elites that their way of doing business would need to come to an end?”

    The American Colonization Society was active throughout the south. The ACS sent volunteer former slaves to Liberia.

    The ACS supporters were probably not in the majority, but I think it was a growing movement even in the south.
    *****

    The South were paying a disproportionate share of the tariffs and excise taxes.

    And northern states were only too happy to use this money. Much of Washington DC was built on slave money. The “National Road” (US Rt 40 today) was built largely on slave money. Little slave money was spent in the south.

    This debate on the cause of the war obscures the fat that the war WAS about slavery as the taxes were levied on products that were mainly produced with slave labor.

    PEACE

  131. Andy

    “This debate on the cause of the war obscures the fat that the war WAS about slavery as the taxes were levied on products that were mainly produced with slave labor.”

    The North was also sticking the South with a disproportionate share of the nations taxes, and this benefited northern manufacturers and government contractors.

    Also, it should be pointed out once again that there were slaves states in the Union such as Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and I’m pretty sure New Jersey, plus Washington DC had slaves as well.

    This shows the hypocrisy of the Union.

  132. Andy

    You know, it is really absurd that so much of this thread has been about rehashing Civil War history, when I’ve illustrated above that this has little to do with why there are not more black people in the Libertarian Party. This also has NOTHING to do with why there are not more women, Native Americans, hispanics, Asians, etc… in the Libertarian Party.

    I’m largely having this debate with a person who has ADMITTED that they have done little or nothing to recruit new people in the Libertarian Party. I would not be surprised if this person has never even attempted to do any outreach to any black people to even hope to inspire them to join the Libertarian Party. This person has admitted that this is essentially a parlor game for them. A way to chit chat online to pass the time.

    The main reason that there are not more black people in the Libertarian Party is due to a lack of outreach, and because what little outreach does take place, much of it is geared toward either the geeky white male computer nerd demographic, or to disgruntled Republicans/conservatives, many of whom tend to be white males. Given these facts, we really should not be surprised that the LP is mostly made up of white males.

    You want a bigger Libertarian Party with more diverse demographics? Then there is going to have be a lot more outreach to diverse groups of people.

  133. Robert Capozzi

    149 A: Lincoln supported an amendment to the Constitution that said that the institution of slavery would never be interfered with, yet the South seceded anyway. This is because the main reason for secession was taxation. The South were paying a disproportionate share of the tariffs and excise taxes.

    me: Help us understand your perspective. One guy – a president – takes a position in an attempt to keep the Union together SOMEHOW PROVES that the Elites ginned up a extra-constitutional legal maneuver because they were pissed only about taxes and not slavery? Really?

    Could it just be possible that other explanations might work, too? Like, for ex., they didn’t believe Lincoln, they thought the march away from slavery was set in train, etc. etc.

  134. Robert Capozzi

    A 153, surely you see the logic gap. I am one guy, an unpersuasive one at that. What that proves is precisely nothing.

  135. Steven R Linnabary

    The main reason that there are not more black people in the Libertarian Party is due to a lack of outreach, and because what little outreach does take place, much of it is geared toward either the geeky white male computer nerd demographic, or to disgruntled Republicans/conservatives, many of whom tend to be white males. Given these facts, we really should not be surprised that the LP is mostly made up of white males.

    BINGO!!

    A few years ago I ran for a seat on an urban school board. One of my opponents was a member of “Nation of Islam” and joined the LP. He was active in the local LP for a couple of years (he went back to the dems when Obama came along).

    In the ensuing years, we have had a decent amount of interest from NOI members. But as you might imagine, some folks think we should not welcome them.

    PEACE

  136. Michael H. Wilson

    Andy @ 152 knocks it outa da park!

    The main reason that there are not more black people in the Libertarian Party is due to a lack of outreach, and because what little outreach does take place, much of it is geared toward either the geeky white male computer nerd demographic, or to disgruntled Republicans/conservatives, many of whom tend to be white males. Given these facts, we really should not be surprised that the LP is mostly made up of white males.

    You want a bigger Libertarian Party with more diverse demographics? Then there is going to have be a lot more outreach to diverse groups of people.

  137. Andy

    “Robert Capozzi // Feb 15, 2013 at 11:15 pm

    A 153, surely you see the logic gap. I am one guy, an unpersuasive one at that. What that proves is precisely nothing.”

    Yes, you are one guy, but there are many others like you in the Libertarian Party / movement, as in those who do little to no outreach to build the party/movement, and who treat it as nothing more than a chit chat club to preach to the choir or to debate minutia.

    I’d rather be involved in the “animating contest for liberty” (as Samuel Adams said) then be a part of a social club that does little more than preach to the choir or argue minutia.

  138. Robert Capozzi

    A 157, assuming I’d be effective at it, why would I recruit minorities into a group populated by people who get red in the face that the CSA was justified in their Insurrection?

    Why would I invite people into a collective that believes in the “right” to any and all weapons, that there’s no such thing as inherently dangerous weapons and no place where weapons would be inappropriate?

    Could I really give someone a book that claims to be the L manifesto that says that fetuses are “parasites”?

    Who is the non-serious person here, you or me?

    In the cold light of day, with “God” as your witness, do you REALLY believe that the LP – with all these extreme, wacked out ideas – can be consequential?

    Look at it in reverse…let’s say I was able to delete the cult of the omnipotent state language. Say I was able to write the gun plank to say that there ARE weapons that are inherently dangerous, and that states and localities could regulate where and what weapons are toted on public property?

    Would you be recruiting people into the LP? Or might you find another vocation/avocation? Or maybe spend more time undoing my moderate language?

    Who’s kidding whom here?

  139. Marc Montoni

    Debating society…

    I only hear one person who routinely pontificates about all of the items in 159.

    *One*. *Routinely*.

    The only true, full-voting-rights member of the debating society.

  140. robert capozzi

    MM, feel free to the question if you have an answer. Are you in this to change the world, or are you in this as some sort of theatrical exercise?

  141. Green_Liberal

    @162 very interesting link thanks for that.

    at around 15:30 West asks Paul directly about the libertarianism’s questionable history on race. Paul says that libertarians see people as individuals and should be anti-racist, so if there are white supremacist libertarians, they are actually conservatives, not libertarians. If this talking point was coupled with an explicit condemnation of white supremacists and neo-Confederates, then it would be alot more convincing.

  142. Green_Liberal

    “Lincoln supported an amendment to the Constitution that said that the institution of slavery would never be interfered with, yet the South seceded anyway. This is because the main reason for secession was taxation. The South were paying a disproportionate share of the tariffs and excise taxes.”

    So, defending the institution of slavery is more likely to fire up the rabble than outrage over unjust taxation? Absurd. If taxes and tariffs were the reason for secession then they would have said so plainly. South Carolina had plenty of historic grievance against tariffs yet tariffs are not mentioned in their secession statement.

    As far as Lincoln goes–he wasn’t trusted in the South. He wasn’t even on the ballot in most Southern states. It seems that he was not perceived to be a moderate on slavery, even if he actually was a moderate.

Leave a Reply