Read carefully what I write: "I think that in the Civil War slavery was not the main issue". You can easily conclude that I have accepted that it was an issue, even an important issue.
You know what we call that bit when an American says it?
White supremacism.
Seriously, you're not original.
And, come on, a dude who says he's from Germany pushes white supremacism? Yeah, that never happens, does it? And if that notion bothers you, well, quit walking into it.
Here, watch the freedom birdie:
We violate his constitutionally-protected freedom if we refuse him the freedom to violate and constrict other people's constitutionally-protected freedom.
This utterly stupid paradox is at the heart of American supremacism. When slavers try to make the American Civil War about other issues, like state's rights, economics, and liberty, they argue the state's right to enjoy the liberty of building an economy with slaves; that is, they enjoy the right and liberty and economy of withholding from others the rights to liberty and economic participation.
And one of the dumbest things in the world is that the rest of us are supposed to put on some sort of airs either openly legitimizing or, at the very least, basically empowering such idiocy as to embody the question of sinister or stupid. Between deliberate cruelty and the desperate noncompetency that is its only functional excuse, the important thing to remember is that far greater efforts than you are either willing or able to give have undertaken the enterprise of trying to excuse the Confederacy, and every last one of them has failed miserably.
And your problem remains that the Trump electorate will not buy this.
In fact, this type of problems prevents me from supporting democracy.
I think the problem is that you're looking for a reason to oppose democracy.
Well, that, or you're just not competent enough to take part.
Or maybe this is like your make-believe about social contract. How about your pretense of apathy toward societal suicide pacts you apparently can't help but advocate? Maybe, "So what?" (
#482↑) seemed like a good answer in its moment, but that's your own question of priorities. For as much as you appeal to ideas that sound like rule of law, that pretense gives way to your explicit rejections thereof. Inasmuch as that makes you just like everybody else, actually, no. Some people try to achieve something and fail; some think it would be nice but don't really try. Like your Mueller investigation argument: It has shown nothing your ignorant political bias wants to see; the rest of your opinion in this issue isn't simply dressed up in ignorance, but feeds on it.
When one actively works to subvert democracy, it isn't really a question of being prevented from supporting it; you made a choice. And, seriously, the idea of a russophiliac, "libertarian", white supremacist Trump defender from abroad whose outlook is only distinguishable from the domestic standard for the volume of time and words he is willing to waste on disseminating misinformation is what it is, but, functionally, amounts to just another heap of steaming, pretentious, American rightism.
There is always a question of who benefits from chaos and confusion. There is also a basic sketch of an idea that every once in a while, people should break form, especially when they are going out of their way to hit what read like template marks.
Let's take a moment to read through a pretty flaccid maneuver.
†
"Libertarian anarchism" is, by function, perpetual instability. One of the things that happens with anarchism is that any social contract must be established anew with each participant. As your, and other, rightist "libertarianism" goes, it seems the refusal of the liberty to refuse other people liberty is enough to compel many to reject the social contract. In these United States, the liberty of supremacism, as such, drives the most harmful elements and aspects of our heritage.
My project of libertarian anarchy includes the right of every group of people to separate from the rest of the world on some own territory, with full sovereignty over that territory. Russia does not support such a right. China and Russia don't support it too, the US has even fought a horrible civil war about this and is proud of having beaten the separatists.
In #492, quoted above,
you are the one who connected, "the right of every group of people to separate from the rest of the world on some own territory, with full sovereignty over that territory", with the right to own slaves and justify it by skin color: "the US has even fought a horrible civil war about this and is proud of having beaten the separatists."
Moreover, you know very well that I think that in the Civil War slavery was not the main issue. Thus, even if I would "go to war" in such a case (I would not), my aim would not be "to maintain industrial scale slavery". Once you know this, this is an intentional lie about me.
In #497, quoted above, you have actually handed us a typical justification of the Confederacy and slavery alike. Furthermore, you're talking about the United States, and perhaps our literary history on this count is somehow subtle: We invoked the right to war in our Declaration of Independence; we tanked the Declaration
twice in establishing the Republic, because we weren't really about liberty and justice for all at that point, but, instead, white-Christian supremacism and basic avarice. Nor can we overlook male supremacism; once upon a time we used to present Abigail Adams to children as if she was heroic for reminding her husband, "Remember the ladies"; what we never taught the children is what
John Adams↱ said in response, which in turn was just filthy, complaining that people who weren't him, including slaves, Russians, and even the Hessians, would want equal rights ("Priviledges"), while guarding against the "Despotism of the Peticoat"; he actually left a large blank space in the closing lines of his letter instead of writing the word "women". Yes, really. Two hundred forty-three years ago, that supremacism asserted to speak for the ostensible good guys. While it is true the Republic has never recovered, you are advocating, under the guise of libertarian anarchism, for the Name of the Masters and their empowerment to mastery over other human beings.
And it's true, after this long, many Americans pretty much know it when we see it; the rest is just a question of how we feel about it. More directly toward what you said, there are many whose "aim would not be 'to maintain industrial scale slavery'" or some other injustice, but, whoopsie, they can't help themselves, and unfortunately the only permissible courses according to their outlooks necessarily perpetuate and empower that injustice. Seriously, we encounter that grift a lot.
Interestingly—
In the case of separatism, it is essentially always the big state party which starts the war. Because the separatists don't need war, all they need is to be left alone on their territory.
—you come back to something
we've covered before↗, after you appealed to appeasing Nazis in jutifying appeasement of North Korea. Consider that, to the one, we have the Nazis, or the Kim regime; to the other, we have the Allies, or the U.S., and whatever other players And while you argue Von Clausewitz, you tend to ignore victimized Jews, starved Koreans, and oppressed dissidents; similarly, in this discussion, it is the African-American slaves and abused indigenous tribes who need to suffer for the sake of what you advocate. And, yes, we get it, your aim would not be to maintain injustice; it's just, that's how the world needs to be, or whatever.
By the time you get around to #500—
Once you claim I have such aims, in a personal attack, these claims are relevant, namely for establishing (yet another time) that you are intentionally lying in your personal attacks against me. Trump is in this context completely irrelevant.
—we actually need to guess what you're after, but, still, it's your straw fallacy seeking to justify injustice.
The larger point, of course, is that by the time we get through #500, you're pretty much trading in stock white supremacism: "The opponent claim, for example, that there have been even black people fighting on the side of the Confederation." I honestly don't know why people justifying the Confederacy think this point is so important. All we ever hear about explanations from them is what doesn't work; they seem unable to make a coherent affirmative argument. In all the history of humanity, the fact of a black slave abetting the Confederacy stands out compared to other questions of collaborators just how?
Of course, that's generally not your point. Iceaura and I saw a version of this about a year ago, in which the hapless advocate—
¡whoopsie!—just happened to accidentally hit basic white supremacist marks; there comes a point at which it's unbelievable.
____________________
Notes:
Adams, John. "John Adams to Abigail Adams, 14 April 1776". Adams Family Correspondence, eds. L. H. Butterfield et al. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1963. HERB.ASHP.cuny.edu. 21 May 2019. http://bit.ly/2gN3rt4
