Soooooooooo....this is the conservative champion lauded...

[Detroit Stylin]

by some of our more conservative friends here? How will he make better the country by following the line of logic he had about the Civil War?


http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane...federate-flag/

[oladub]

You're late to the party. Whitehouse already posted this and there has been some discussion on the "Michigan Republican Primary: Vote for Ron Paul!!! thread starting at post #44. His line of reasoning was excellent about the Civil War had you actually listened to the speech. 11 counties in the western hemisphere had slavery. Only one had a war over it. Some of the other countries bought the slaves and freed them at a much lower price in terms of lives [[600,000 dead Americans) and property. Maybe Lincoln wasn't as able as leaders of those other countries.

Since blacks have lost a higher percentage of jobs and homes and been incarcerated at a higher percentage for the same drug violations as whites under Obama, racists will probably realize that they should vote for Obama to accomplish their goals.

Edited to add: I realize there were good and offsetting reasons for electing President Obama. The pride of having a black President must have a very positive effect for especially the black community, but even for our Country. Offsetting subsequent failures having nothing to do with his race. Beyond that, Senator McCain probably would have been an even worse president.

[canuck]

Yeah, buying the slaves from the southern slaveowners, a bit like the government buying toxic mortgages nowadays. I love how he sifts his argument to the financial tradeoff of the slave economy.

Ron Paul's convenient revisionist view is meant to counter the perceived bankruptcy of the northern states with the decline of the rustbelt, east and westcoast liberal culture and the damned unions. It is really sad to think of how maligned the slaveowners were for so long...

[Detroit Stylin]

You're late to the party. Whitehouse already posted this and there has been some discussion on the "Michigan Republican Primary: Vote for Ron Paul!!! thread starting at post #44. His line of reasoning was excellent about the Civil War had you actually listened to the speech. 11 counties in the western hemisphere had slavery. Only one had a war over it. Some of the other countries bought the slaves and freed them at a much lower price in terms of lives [[600,000 dead Americans) and property. Maybe Lincoln wasn't as able as leaders of those other countries.

Since blacks have lost a higher percentage of jobs and homes and been incarcerated at a higher percentage for the same drug violations as whites under Obama, racists will probably realize that they should vote for Obama to accomplish their goals.

Edited to add: I realize there were good and offsetting reasons for electing President Obama. The pride of having a black President must have a very positive effect for especially the black community, but even for our Country. Offsetting subsequent failures having nothing to do with his race. Beyond that, Senator McCain probably would have been an even worse president.

So would he have been able to spin this like that story as well?

[oladub]

canuck, Britain purchased slave many years before our Civil War and let them free. That's a historical fact not generally taught in US high school history courses that revere Lincoln. It wasn't just financial. You neglect that 600,000 Americans died to resolve the situation with war.

"Slavery was officially abolished in most of the British Empire on 1 August 1834. In practical terms, however, only slaves below the age of six were freed in the colonies, as all former slaves over the age of six were redesignated as "apprentices", which was abolished in two stages; the first set of apprenticeships came to an end on 1 August 1838, while the final apprenticeships were scheduled to cease on 1 August 1840. The Act also included the right of compensation for slave-owners who would be losing their property. The amount of money to be spent on the compensation claims was set at "the Sum of Twenty Millions Pounds Sterling".Under the terms of the Act the British government raised £20 million to pay out in compensation for the loss of the slaves as business assets to the registered owners of the freed slaves. The names listed in the returns for slave compensation show that ownership was spread over many hundreds of British families, many of them of high social standing. For example, Henry Phillpotts [[then the Bishop of Exeter), in a partnership with three business colleagues, received £12,700 for 665 slaves in the West Indies. The majority of men and women who were awarded compensation under the 1833 Abolition Act are listed in a Parliamentary Return, entitled Slavery Abolition Act, which is an account of all moneys awarded by the Commissioners of Slave Compensation in the Parliamentary Papers 1837-8 Vol. 48.
In all, the government paid out over 40,000 separate awards. The £20 million fund was 40% of the government's total annual expenditure".
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

[Detroit Stylin]

canuck, Britain purchased slave many years before our Civil War and let them free. That's a historical fact not generally taught in US high school history courses that revere Lincoln. It wasn't just financial. You neglect that 600,000 Americans died to resolve the situation with war.

"Slavery was officially abolished in most of the British Empire on 1 August 1834. In practical terms, however, only slaves below the age of six were freed in the colonies, as all former slaves over the age of six were redesignated as "apprentices", which was abolished in two stages; the first set of apprenticeships came to an end on 1 August 1838, while the final apprenticeships were scheduled to cease on 1 August 1840. The Act also included the right of compensation for slave-owners who would be losing their property. The amount of money to be spent on the compensation claims was set at "the Sum of Twenty Millions Pounds Sterling".Under the terms of the Act the British government raised £20 million to pay out in compensation for the loss of the slaves as business assets to the registered owners of the freed slaves. The names listed in the returns for slave compensation show that ownership was spread over many hundreds of British families, many of them of high social standing. For example, Henry Phillpotts [[then the Bishop of Exeter), in a partnership with three business colleagues, received £12,700 for 665 slaves in the West Indies. The majority of men and women who were awarded compensation under the 1833 Abolition Act are listed in a Parliamentary Return, entitled Slavery Abolition Act, which is an account of all moneys awarded by the Commissioners of Slave Compensation in the Parliamentary Papers 1837-8 Vol. 48.
In all, the government paid out over 40,000 separate awards. The £20 million fund was 40% of the government's total annual expenditure".
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

So why should the government have 'bought' something that was rightfully granted them at birth? Do you see the African Slaves as little more than a commodity to be purchased owned and sold at a whim? Do agree with the fact that the government should have have simply purchased them as opposed to fight and die for their freedom?

[canuck]

oladub, I disagree with the assertion that this would have successfully checked the south's resolve to claim autonomy in regards to slavery. To me, it is a convenient argument, a feelgood balm on the resentful bubbas of the world.

I cannot understand the enthusiam you have for someone who consistently credits the confederate ideology, in fact, he was the only member of congress to vote against honoring the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in 2004. He is a bigot, that is all there is to it, not something to be elevated to a president, let alone a congressman.

[oladub]

So why should the government have 'bought' something that was rightfully granted them at birth? Do you see the African Slaves as little more than a commodity to be purchased owned and sold at a whim? Do agree with the fact that the government should have have simply purchased them as opposed to fight and die for their freedom?

Given two routes to the same desirable end; one being relatively inexpensive and bloodless, that seems the better choice. It's like asking should we pay $120/barrel for mideast oil or be fighting endless wars and taking the chance of starting WWIII to suppress the cost of oil $20/barrel? This has already costing a lot of American lives and costing a trillion dollars. President Obama, Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney like the war option. Paul is the consistent alternative candidate opposed to wars today as well as 160 years ago. if you like the wars, vote for one of the other candidates.There is no need to support 600,000 unnecessary deaths 160 years ago when you have so many war candidates to vote for today. Bomb Libya rah, rah, rah. Feel freer now?

Your second question is nonsensical. I'm a libertarian. I'll leave the elective wars, Guantanamo, involuntary servitude, Roosevelt's confinement of Japanese Americans to you liberals and neocons.

Third question. Yes, without reservations if purchasing and freeing slaves could have been accomplished less expensively and without bloodshed as the British did it. I'm not into drama. The British solution took about the same amount of time as did the Civil War. Too bad Lincoln or some other leader wasn't able to replicate the British example. The Civil War wasn't entered into to set slaves free anyway. I could quote Lincoln regarding slaves if you wish but you wouldn't like him as much any more.

[Detroit Stylin]

So in essence what you are saying is that you still see the Slavery issue as them being the property to be sold for what God has given man at birth anyway which is their freedom. No what YOU are saying makes no sense. That's like you telling me that if I own a house and someone just comes in an takes it and dictates policy to me then I should PAY them to go away and let me live my life in the house I already owned anyway?! How stupid can you really be and dumb to even try to justify that position?!

[antongast]

Would Ron Paul have supported the US going into debt, printing non-gold-backed currency, and raising taxes in order to buy off slaveowners? Because that's how the Civil War was financed, and any suggestion that that money could have been used to buy the slaves should necessarily count as an endorsement of those fiscal policies.

[canuck]

That sounds so unlibertarian to me oladub.

This government intervention on a massive scale to buy back freedom which as Detroit Stylin says was granted to them at birth in the eyes of the constitution anyways?

Where is the logic in buying back something the northern states had already abolished?

To keep the union was an obsession that Lincoln shared with many others, maybe to a fault, OK.

The one major problem with libertarians becoming executives in government is that they have an agenda like everybody else has. If you read between the lines, this guy is another nutcase, and his agenda will include spending money on stuff he deems worthy of spending it on. All this BS about becoming a president and doing away with governement or government spending is ludicrous.

[oladub]

oladub, I disagree with the assertion that this would have successfully checked the south's resolve to claim autonomy in regards to slavery. To me, it is a convenient argument, a feelgood balm on the resentful bubbas of the world.

I cannot understand the enthusiam you have for someone who consistently credits the confederate ideology, in fact, he was the only member of congress to vote against honoring the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in 2004. He is a bigot, that is all there is to it, not something to be elevated to a president, let alone a congressman.

Think of eminent domain which requires fair payment for what the government takes. The deal is between the individual property owner and the government rather than the south and the government. If a fair deal was offered, slaveowners might not have banded together into the 'south'. They didn't do so in the other ten American countries with slavery.

Ron Paul does not "consistently credit the confederate ideology". Ron Paul voted against making a commemorative medal for Ronald Reagan. Is that supposed to make him a Reagan hater? Same logic. The press threw everything at Ron Paul they could to convince the sheeple that he was a racist and favored Palestinians over Israel for two weeks before the Iowa election. it just made the press look ridiculous and he still came within receiving 3% of his highest polling number. I think what happened is that a lot of people realized that here was an honest politician that did not just say things depending on the way the wind was blowing. He supports your right to drink raw milk or smoke weed even if those aren't popular and PC issues everyone is supposed to support. He was booed in a S. Carolina debate for suggesting the golden rule with respect to the treatment of other nations. And yes, he will point out imperfections in government acts rather than pretend he likes all the emperor's clothes. There are lots of alternatives if you are partial to PC talking flip floppers and liars.

[canuck]

Think of eminent domain which requires fair payment for what the government takes. The deal is between the individual property owner and the government rather than the south and the government. If a fair deal was offered, slaveowners might not have banded together into the 'south'. They didn't do so in the other ten American countries with slavery.

The states favorable to secession had already banded together for the longest time, oladub.

[oladub]

So in essence what you are saying is that you still see the Slavery issue as them being the property to be sold for what God has given man at birth anyway which is their freedom. No what YOU are saying makes no sense. That's like you telling me that if I own a house and someone just comes in an takes it and dictates policy to me then I should PAY them to go away and let me live my life in the house I already owned anyway?! How stupid can you really be and dumb to even try to justify that position?!

You are confusing result with style. You sound like Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul when you mention God and freedom. Jefferson, of course wrote that the reason[[singular) for government was to preserve creator given rights. No disagreement there. We disagree on method. If slavery could have been ended without 600,000 deaths and burning down Atlanta, among other things, and in the same time frame, as it was in other countries, it would have been my choice. Fast forwarding to the present: That is one reason I support Ron Paul. He tries to apply the golden rule and practicality to international relations. Why fight endless wars decimating our economy when a cheaper solution might be to pay the market price for oil or develop our own resources and technology.

[oladub]

Would Ron Paul have supported the US going into debt, printing non-gold-backed currency, and raising taxes in order to buy off slaveowners? Because that's how the Civil War was financed, and any suggestion that that money could have been used to buy the slaves should necessarily count as an endorsement of those fiscal policies.

I think that's a real good hypothetical question. He would be totally against both slavery and having a civil war. He has said that it would have made a lot more sense to buy the slaves' freedom than to wage a much more deadly and expensive war to accomplish the same thing. I don't think that Lincoln imagined that the Civil War was going to be as expensive as it was. Buying and freeing the slaves might have cost only a quarter as much not even including massive war damages and casualties. For that amount, import taxes and selling government land might have been possibilities for raising some revenue.

[oladub]

That sounds so unlibertarian to me oladub.

This government intervention on a massive scale to buy back freedom which as Detroit Stylin says was granted to them at birth in the eyes of the constitution anyways?

Where is the logic in buying back something the northern states had already abolished?

To keep the union was an obsession that Lincoln shared with many others, maybe to a fault, OK.

The one major problem with libertarians becoming executives in government is that they have an agenda like everybody else has. If you read between the lines, this guy is another nutcase, and his agenda will include spending money on stuff he deems worthy of spending it on. All this BS about becoming a president and doing away with governement or government spending is ludicrous.

Like my minister told the congregation the last time he was in the pulpit before beginning his new life as an insurance salesman, "Sometimes God gives us two bad choices and the best we can do is to go with the lesser of two evils." In this case it might have been ending slavery for X billion dollars instead of ending slavery for 4X billion dollars and 600,000 lives.

You are wrong about the Constitution though. There would have been no union at that time if the founders had tried to settle that question. There was even that 3/5 of a person compromise. For better or worse, they put off the question of slavery. The magic for the North would have been in saving hundreds of thousands of lives and a lot of money. Of course, there are always those who profit on wars.

We disagree on our definitions of "nutcase' and "ludicrous". I associate those concepts with policies and politicians promoting endless wars, runaway deficit spending, and the gradual usurpation of our liberties.

[Gistok]

11 counties in the western hemisphere had slavery. Only one had a war over it. Some of the other countries bought the slaves and freed them at a much lower price in terms of lives [[600,000 dead Americans) and property. Maybe Lincoln wasn't as able as leaders of those other countries.

Oladub... sometimes your posts are brilliant... other times... not so...

After the November 1860 presidential election win by Lincoln... on Jan. 5, 1861 South Carolina started the ball rolling toward secession..
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoun.../secession.htm

And on March 4, 1861 Lincoln was inaugurated for his first term....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham...l_inauguration

Maybe you should be pointing some fingers at his predecessors, such as James Buchanan?

Lincoln started office with a mess.... one that he didn't create.... so calling him "not so able" because of the slavery issue is absurd....

[Detroit Stylin]

Oladub... sometimes your posts are brilliant... other times... not so...

After the November 1860 presidential election win by Lincoln... on Jan. 5, 1861 South Carolina started the ball rolling toward secession..
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoun.../secession.htm

And on March 4, 1861 Lincoln was inaugurated for his first term....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham...l_inauguration

Maybe you should be pointing some fingers at his predecessors, such as James Buchanan?

Lincoln started office with a mess.... one that he didn't create.... so calling him "not so able" because of the slavery issue is absurd....

And I STILL dont think that he quite gets the idiocy of paying for something that someone once had by virtue of birth and had stolen from them by being violently kidnapped....That makes no sense. That's like the cops paying a thief for a diamond he stole. You are going to pay someone for the liberation of something that was gained illegally?

If there are more people out there that think like you "out there" then I hope they never raise their heads...for real...

[oladub]

Oladub... sometimes your posts are brilliant... other times... not so...

After the November 1860 presidential election win by Lincoln... on Jan. 5, 1861 South Carolina started the ball rolling toward secession..
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoun.../secession.htm

And on March 4, 1861 Lincoln was inaugurated for his first term....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham...l_inauguration

Maybe you should be pointing some fingers at his predecessors, such as James Buchanan?

Lincoln started office with a mess.... one that he didn't create.... so calling him "not so able" because of the slavery issue is absurd....

What I previously wrote addressing part of this was, "The deal is between the individual property owner and the government rather than the south and the government. If a fair deal was offered, slaveowners might not have banded together into the 'south'". Ultimately neither previous presidents, as you mentioned, nor Lincoln as a candidate addressed the concerns of the slaveholders. They responded by banding together and succeeding.

As an aside, Ron Paul is scorned at Republican debates for noting that 9/11 may have been blowback for our international policies. Neocons really don't like to hear that. People don't like getting bombed and sometimes they react to such injustices unfavorably. Similarly, slaveholders reacted to perceived injustices aimed at them. Before someone jumps on me, I'm not suggesting that slaveholders or Bin Laden types are good guys; just that sometimes there is blowback from even bad guys when they perceive injustices and lack hope.

I think you make a good point about Lincoln's predecessors also failing to resolve slavery. Maybe some of the blame should be put onto the political system or the voters which/who did not produce an acceptable candidate capable of resolving the slavery problem peacefully much like today's candidates and voters who risk war with Iran. Your first article suggests the reason for succession was to maintain slavery and the Wikipedia article mentioned that 7 states succeeded between Lincoln's November election and being sworn into office in February. Sounds like those states lost all hope and started acting like rats fleeing the proverbial sinking ship.

Over on the other thread which previously touched on all this, there was mention that Lincoln had estimated a cost for liberating the slaves but considered it too much although the war eventually cost considerably more. It seems the slaveholders saw Lincoln as bad news and bolted.

I don't mean to suggest that payment/liberation was the only alternative to war to end slavery. John Woolman convinced Quakers to give up slavery. New Jersey eliminated slavery at the state level without a war or payments.

"New Jersey was the last of the Northern states to abolish slavery. It created a gradual abolition. Beginning in 1804, New Jersey considered African Americans to be born free, but required children to serve apprenticeships as a type of indentured servant until early adulthood for the owners of their slave mothers."

[canuck]

And I STILL dont think that he quite gets the idiocy of paying for something that someone once had by virtue of birth and had stolen from them by being violently kidnapped....That makes no sense. That's like the cops paying a thief for a diamond he stole. You are going to pay someone for the liberation of something that was gained illegally?

If there are more people out there that think like you "out there" then I hope they never raise their heads...for real...

Beside his claim that a kinder gentler nation would have come out of this, what makes him so sweet is that he lives in probably the most punitive, and least redeeming districts in the United States. His racism far outshines his good manners.

It is interesting how the conservatives wrap their discourse in a pseudo liberal lingo, to mop up the undecided or disappointed voters of which there are many. Libertarianism is nothing more than a shroud on extremely biased, hyper-conservative elitism. Ass all it is...

[canuck]

By the way, no chance in hell Ron Paul and Ru Paul be bruvvahs!

[oladub]

And I STILL dont think that he quite gets the idiocy of paying for something that someone once had by virtue of birth and had stolen from them by being violently kidnapped....That makes no sense. That's like the cops paying a thief for a diamond he stole. You are going to pay someone for the liberation of something that was gained illegally?

If there are more people out there that think like you "out there" then I hope they never raise their heads...for real...

And I still don't get your obsession with violence when less expensive and bloody methods have worked and served as an option. Bad analogy. Slavery was legal. Stealing diamonds isn't. You confuse whether you or I think slavery was ethical or sinful with what was legal in Mississippi in 1860.

If you like violent solutions, vote for Obama. He bombs Libyans. See, now Libyans are liberated and are killing black immigrants. Do you still feel better? That's what you will no doubt continue to support with your vote.

[canuck]

What I previously wrote addressing part of this was, "The deal is between the individual property owner and the government rather than the south and the government. If a fair deal was offered, slaveowners might not have banded together into the 'south'". Ultimately neither previous presidents, as you mentioned, nor Lincoln as a candidate addressed the concerns of the slaveholders. They responded by banding together and succeeding.

As an aside, Ron Paul is scorned at Republican debates for noting that 9/11 may have been blowback for our international policies. Neocons really don't like to hear that. People don't like getting bombed and sometimes they react to such injustices unfavorably. Similarly, slaveholders reacted to perceived injustices aimed at them. Before someone jumps on me, I'm not suggesting that slaveholders or Bin Laden types are good guys; just that sometimes there is blowback from even bad guys when they perceive injustices and lack hope.

I think you make a good point about Lincoln's predecessors also failing to resolve slavery. Maybe some of the blame should be put onto the political system or the voters which/who did not produce an acceptable candidate capable of resolving the slavery problem peacefully much like today's candidates and voters who risk war with Iran. Your first article suggests the reason for succession was to maintain slavery and the Wikipedia article mentioned that 7 states succeeded between Lincoln's November election and being sworn into office in February. Sounds like those states lost all hope and started acting like rats fleeing the proverbial sinking ship.

Over on the other thread which previously touched on all this, there was mention that Lincoln had estimated a cost for liberating the slaves but considered it too much although the war eventually cost considerably more. It seems the slaveholders saw Lincoln as bad news and bolted.

I don't mean to suggest that payment/liberation was the only alternative to war to end slavery. John Woolman convinced Quakers to give up slavery. New Jersey eliminated slavery at the state level without a war or payments.

"New Jersey was the last of the Northern states to abolish slavery. It created a gradual abolition. Beginning in 1804, New Jersey considered African Americans to be born free, but required children to serve apprenticeships as a type of indentured servant until early adulthood for the owners of their slave mothers."

Wow, you should turn to spin speechwriting man. All the stuff you learned to hate about the society of entitlements, the money showered on the undeserving lower classes, or lavished on the Washington elites you manage to turn around and splurge on the poor maligned slaveowners, lest they be tempted to fight for their rights.

-Secession, not succession.

[oladub]

Wow, you should turn to spin speechwriting man. All the stuff you learned to hate about the society of entitlements, the money showered on the undeserving lower classes, or lavished on the Washington elites you manage to turn around and splurge on the poor maligned slaveowners, lest they be tempted to fight for their rights.

-Secession, not succession.

Thank you for the spelling correction. Like I said, I didn't support the Bin laden types either but there is the reality of cause and effect even with bad guys. When not acknowledged, we get things like secession and 9/11. Unlike you 'canuck', I regret the unnecessary loss of 600,000 US lives. You do bring up an interesting point though. The Bush/Obama support of the Wall Street bailouts is a payment to the 1% while I was suggesting payments to the upper 1% slaveholders. The difference is that paying off the slaveholders would have eliminated slavery and ended their ownership of slaves while the Obama support of Wall Street banksters allowed them to keep doing what they were doing and increase their market share.

[canuck]

And I still don't get your obsession with violence when less expensive and bloody methods have worked and served as an option. Bad analogy. Slavery was legal. Stealing diamonds isn't. You confuse whether you or I think slavery was ethical or sinful with what was legal in Mississippi in 1860.

If you like violent solutions, vote for Obama. He bombs Libyans. See, now Libyans are liberated and are killing black immigrants. Do you still feel better? That's what you will no doubt continue to support with your vote.

So when the US complies with unjust laws in other countries, it doesnt become complicit with the regimes in place.

When the US needs to tweak the relationship to its advantage like showering tons of money on Pakistan instead of getting involved militarily, it is doing a good thing, a sane thing?

What was supposed to happen to the liberated slaves? How were they to recoup their investments in american life? What happened after the civil war when the dust settled?
The landowning class in the south managed to hold on to a lucrative lifestyle with sharecropping and class division. I hate to think how much better off the sonsabitches would have been with a little help from the northern states...