“there’s something seriously wrong when self-styled libertarians glorify those who fought a war to preserve slavery and vilify the Great Emancipator.”

You are seriously lacking in comprehension skills good sir, if you think I did any such thing!

His campaign against Vicksburg was the most brilliant of the war. His army inflicted far more casualties on the Confederates than they suffered. (191,000 vs. 154,000). Lee’s army, alone, by contrast, suffered 209,000 casualties. Three separate Confederate armies surrendered to Grant, including, in the end, Lee’s.

After the war, the “failed president”, as you call him, collected $15.5 million in damages from Britain for its role in aiding the Confederacy (The Alabama claims). The Louisiana Purchase, in comparison, cost only $15 million.

I’m not going to spend time debunking DiLorenzo’s alternative universe, it’s been done elsewhere, but there’s something seriously wrong when self-styled libertarians glorify those who fought a war to preserve slavery and vilify the Great Emancipator.

After the Civil War, blacks were able to vote, held high political office, and become successful in commerce and business. Three amendments to the Constitution were enacted with the intent of guarantying the rights of former slaves. As President, Grant appointed Frederick Douglass Marshal of the District of Columbia and Minister to Haiti.

All this was gradually eroded through violence by such groups as the Klu Klux Klan (founded by six Confederate veterans) and southern Democrats. As part of the compromise that placed Rutherford B. Hayes in the White House, black rights were sacrificed in the interests of domestic tranquility.

As Frederick Douglas observed:

To Grant more than any other man the Negro owes his enfranchisement and the Indian a humane policy. In the matter of protection of the freedman from violence his moral courage surpassed that of his party; hence his place at its head was given to timid men, and the country was allowed to drift, instead of stemming the current with stalwart arms.

Quoting a nasty drunk, butcher and massively failed President doesn’t cut much ice with me either…

“I never was an Abolitionist — not even what could be called Anti-slavery…”

Um, so what was he fighting for during the first two years of the war? Obviously, by his own words, not the fundamental principle of anti-slavery. The preservation of the Union at all costs, just like Lincoln, is my opinion.

Secession by the Southern States was considered treason that must be resisted at all costs. It killed more Americans than any other war in its history, and the wounds have yet to heal to this day. So the war was fundamentally political, not moral.

If it was moral (the abolition of slavery and the introduction of equality) then how come it took another hundred years to end segregation, and how the hell could segregation laws be enacted in the first place?

But enough from me, you feel free to…

Anyway, RAB, these days I find myself rather wishing that you’d repeat your little White House excursion of 1812. Not that one building means very much, but it certainly would be symbolic!

Was the Civil War only about slavery? No. Was it primarily about slavery? The seceding states answered that question in their Declarations of Causes. As Mississippi declared:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.

And as General Grant wrote during the siege of Vicksburg:

I never was an Abolitionist — not even what could be called Anti-slavery — but I try to judge fairly and honestly; and it became patent to my mind early in the rebellion, that the North and South could never live in peace with each other except as one nation. As anxious as I am to see peace, and that without slavery, re-established, I would not therefore be willing to see any settlement until this question is forever settled.”Ž

As a matter of fact I believe the American Constitution to be the finest most important legal document ever written (wish we had one). Yes of course the causes of the Revolution were many and complex. More like the first Civil war really, as half us Brits were cheering you on.

Then again to claim that the Civil War was ONLY about slavery is incredibly simplistic too. Not that you did of course.

I’m reminded of Lost Causers who insist the American Civil War was all about the tariff and had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery.

To insist the American Revolution was just about “fail[ing] to pay its Bar Bill” is to ignore such matters as the Navigation Acts and Writs of Assistance, the Proclamation of 1763, the Intolerable Acts of 1774, and the effect the Enlightenment had on colonial thinking.

The First Continental Congress was convened in late 1774 to press for repeal of the Intolerable Acts, not for tax relief. British regulars confronted by militia at Lexington and Concord were not searching for taxes. Colonial leaders such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams did not place their lives at risk for a few shillings of tax relief.

Really? Why not? George desperately wanted a Commission in the British Army, but was denied one. Had we given him one, would he have fought on the British side?

And everyone who fought in a war has historically been in their 20′s, or younger. Alexander the Great was dead at 30. Some folks are better at fighting than others. Then others are better at myth making and accumilating fame to themselves from others doing the heavy lifting for them. Err, like you would not be an independent nation without the French intervention; you know those blokes who captured young George and sent him home with his tail between his legs. Irony or what?

The fact is there was a Geopolitical war going on back then between Britain and France, which Britain eventually won. America failed to pay it’s Bar Bill. Simple as that. and got ungrateful with it. This is what happens unfortunately all to often between the endebted and the endebtors.

Best not mention 1812 and the White House either I suppose.

That Wikipedia article isn’t particularly accurate. At best it’s a description of the state of free speech laws prior to 1865. With the ratification of the 14th Amendment the protections of the Bill of Rights were extended to cover state as well as federal actions. Prior to that, they only applied to federal action and many states had blasphemy and similar laws; some even established official state religions. And some of those laws remain on the books to this day, but that’s entirely due to institutional lethargy; no one believes they would be enforceable today. My own state (South Carolina) still has in its constitution a religious qualification to hold public office, but it’s never mentioned by anyone.

Which is not to say that Posner’s comment is incorrect as a matter of history, but it’s irrelevant as a matter of current practice. The concepts of “prior restraint” and “chilling” have long been elements of first amendment jurisprudence, and that’s not going to change any time soon. Nor should it.

RAB, I will concede that the “denial of rights” thing at the time of the Revolution may have been a bit overblown (what’s a little hyperbole among friends?), but there clearly were abuses and I will argue with your assertion that we weren’t “paying our dues”. Most of the taxes at the time went to pay for the King’s wars on the continent, which was of no benefit to us whatsoever. And there was a lot more to it than overt taxes, notably the prohibitions on trade with other countries. So I won’t apologize for some political “spin” to galvanize the populace.

And what’s this with dissing George Washington? He was only in his 20′s and totally lacking in military experience during the French and Indian War. He “distinguished” himself as much as could be expected (enough so that the King wanted him to remain in the British army). Anyway, we can criticize GW; you can’t, you limey!

Probably the oldest newspaper in the world is the Times of London, first published 1785.

Newspapers long predate the Times. Newspapers in America date as far back as the 17th century.

Blackstone may pontificate all he liked, but the word “Commentaries” is the clue. He made no Law at all…

Blackstone was highly influential in America and his Commentaries informed the authors of the Constitution.

[Blackstone] Refers to publishing words that are an incitement to things that are already illegal.

Quite frankly, that’s wishful thinking and not the understanding 18th century lawyers and judges had. Consider, for example, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which restricted speech critical of the government.

Anyone who believes that is seriously deluded. The average Englishman at the time had probably less rights than the Colonists.

That’s probably true, but it is not the perception colonists, especially in Massachusetts, had. As John Adams observed:

Every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take arms against Writs of Assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born.

Probably the oldest newspaper in the world is the Times of London, first published 1785. Circulation in the mere thousands. Before that Pamphlets and periodicals. Free Press and Media? In its infancy, especially America, which has a highly localised media even to this day. The New York Times didn’t get started until 1851 fer chrissakes!

Blackstone may pontificate all he liked, but the word “Commentaries” is the clue. He made no Law at all, Common, Statute or Precedent, he merely commented on them. This quote from yours above…

but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity.”

Refers to publishing words that are an incitement to things that are already illegal. For example if what you publish is a flat out lie, then the Law of Libel comes into play.If you say I hate such and such a group, person etc, then that is free speech, you should be entitled to your opinion. But if you go further and say…. Isn’t time the rest of you out there took up arms and killed them, then you have wandered into an area of Law that is already a criminal offence. Not because of the offence of your speech, but of your incitement to the criminal act of violence against their persons.

The intellectual underpinning of the American Revolution was that the colonists rights, as Englishmen, were being systematically violated.

Anyone who believes that is seriously deluded. The average Englishman at the time had probably less rights than the Colonists. The Colonists just didn’t want to pay their dues for Britain saving them from Colonisation by the French is the truth of the matter, and at vast cost to the English Treasury. Let’s face it, George Washington didn’t distinguish himself particularly well in that little fracas did he?

Seriously, Judge Posner’s point is not the judicial gloss that has currently been placed on the First Amendment, but rather how it was understood when ratified.

Judicial interpretation (“gloss”) can and does change. Those who would restrict free speech have a strong argument if they can point to how the First Amendment was interpreted at the time of ratification — not as a guarantee of legal consequence-free speech, but a guarantee against prior restraint.

To understand how the First Amendment was interpreted it helps to look to Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, which were widely read and cited by American lawyers and jurists of the late 18th century.

“The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state: but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public: to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity.”

The intellectual underpinning of the American Revolution was that the colonists rights, as Englishmen, were being systematically violated. That was what James Otis argued when he challenged the Writs of Assistance before the Superior Court of Massachusetts in 1761, and it was Blackstone’s understanding of liberty of the press that informed how those who ratified the Bill of Rights understood the First Amendment.