Comment: Dilorenzo (as well as Rockwell and Rothbard) -- sadly

(See in situ)

Dilorenzo (as well as Rockwell and Rothbard) -- sadly

Rothbardians argue that the South did NOT secede owing to Slavery.

You will prove them false by your own simple investigations

They use this as the argument for State-Rights and Self-Gov't (the exact phraseology used by The Antebellum South to justify Secession in 1860)

Read all the way down BEFORE you reply otherwise if you take up their "side" you'll sound stupid

Claims made by DiLorenzo, Rockwell, Woods, and Rothbard.

1) The South Seceded because of a violation of state-rights that had NOTHING to do with the continuance of slavery (DiLorenzo's et al Rothbardians argument)

2) The South did not want to expand slavery into the Territories (DiLorenzo's argument)

3) The South was "winding down" slavery and it would have "ended" on its own (DiLorenzo's argument)

4) That Lincoln attacked the South 1st (DiLorenzo implies this to be true)

5) That Lincoln tried no other means to end slavery prior to the Civil War (DiLorenzo's argument is that all other western endings to slavery were done peacefully).

All of DiLorenzo's arguments were either made by Rockwell or Rothbard prior to his "Lincoln" books or supported by Rockwell and Woods (et al) afterward.

This is horse-apples AND I'll prove it.

You'll need to use Google:

1) "Declaration of Causes"

---Gives each of the Southern States "causes" for seceding
---All of them mention slavery

2) "Secession-Commissioners"

3) "Confederate States Constitution"

4) "Fire-Eaters and Breckenridge"

---Mentions Slavery 28 times

Here's a sample:

Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.[38]

Here's some LOGICAL arguments why it WAS bout slavery:

#1 Over 80% of the profit-drivers of the South was from Slavery

---We argue on DP why countries go to war all the time
---Countries War to either continue, expand, or reduce the costs of their profit-drivers

#2 There are over 75 images of slavery on the Southern States Currency -- It's on their money people!!!

#3 The South owed HUGE debts to Banks of England and France (Rothschilds) -- Blasted Factorage system.

---We argue the EVILS of corporatism all the time on DP and corporatism is nothing without debt-financing......Should we not consider the Southern Debt and Dependence on a nearly 100% Slave-based economy or should we "imagine" an alternate motivator?