Ron Paul seems to forget that it was the confederate states that declared war on the Union, not the other way around. His position that the war was not fought over slavery is not supported by documented fact. It is a fact that the declaration of war stated that the reason was to preserve the institution of slavery. The Union never declared war and simply issued the Crightenton Resolution stating that the government wished to preserve the Union. Ron Paul's knowlege of history is lacking.
Obviously Ron has not read the articles of secession (easily availible online) by each state. Most include lines that say the US govermenment was upending the laws of GOD by suggesting that the black man was equivilent to the white man. There were offers by Lincoln and others to not only buy the slaves but to ship them off to various places around the globe, southern states and some nothern would have none of it.
Paul is incredibly ignorant. To think that the slaves could have been just bought ignores all the events that had transpired and the mood and ideologies of the people. It ignores all the compromises that were tried, it ignores bleeding Kansas where the war was already essentially being fought over slavery. The South was not about to give up slavery no matter what, for as Mississippi put it:
"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." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
Or perhaps even more poignantly the Virginia secession commission stated:
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous."
And additionally, Lincoln floated compensated emancipation and there were no takers, not even the border states, he even still offered it as late as 1865 at the Hampton Roads conference and the South still turned it down, because to keep slavery and expand it, was the entire reason they were fighting.
Paul is incredibly ignorant of history to make such a foolish and unsupportable argument.
So Paul is absolutely incorrect on all levels. The South was not like UK or France where slavery was in colonies and remote from most of the society. Slavery in the South was ingrained in the culture and economy to a much greater extent than in other countries. Four Million of the South's nine million people were slaves. And France experienced huge slave revolts and an entire revolution that involved freedom for all, before ending slavery could be accomplished. Hardly a bloodless affair
Slavery abolished in British Empire in 1834 (Slavery Abolition Act) through apprenticeships. The Act 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". Slavery was not illegal up to this point so the govt was not cooperating with criminals. It was rather, correcting the problem of slavery in a logical manner.
But that was the UK. The situation is the US was totally different. Slavery was in the colonies in the UK, not in the home country ingrained in the domestic economy and culture as it was in the South. To think that the slaves could have been just bought ignores all the events that had transpired and the mood and ideologies of the people. The South was not about to give up slavery no matter what, for as Mississippi put it:
"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." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
-
Or perhaps even more poignantly the Virginia secession commission stated:
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous"
And additionally Lincoln floated the compensated emancipation and there were no takers, not even the border states, he even still offered it as late as 1865 at the Hampton Roads conference and the South turned it down, because to keep it and expand it, was the entire reason they were fighting.
-
Paul is incredibly ignorant of history to make such a foolish and unsupportable argument
And additionally Lincoln floated the compensated emancipation and there were no takers, not even the border states, he even still offered it as late as 1865 at the Hampton Roads conference and the South turned it down, because to keep it and expand it, was the entire reason they were fighting.
Paul is incredibly ignorant of history to make such a foolish and unsupportable argument.
Paul is typically wrong on all levels here. The South rejected all attempts to even discuss ending slavery, including paid emancipation. And any comparison to other countries, like he tries, is just ignorant. No other country had slavery as ingrained in the society as did the American South, where some 40% or, four million of its nine million people are slaves.
In England, slavery existed only in colonies, it did not have the political power or cultural influence that slavery in the South had. And its political, cultural and economic power within the South was increasing, not decreasing. As evidenced by the declarations of secession, which I doubt Paul has read, the South was not about to give up slavery anytime soon, or even ever.
@Rundstedt1 I like the way you routinely post the EXACT same comments on every ron paul video every few days or so. I remember many months ago one guy posted "Wait one minute while Rundstedt1 opens up his word document." I cant remember who that was though? Remember him? He was the one against ALL government, the anarchist.
@Rundstedt1 I must read the declarations of secession, but you can't deny the growing industrial might of the north. Similarly, Canada achieved revolution without war. Same principle.
Revolution in Canada? What revolution? ... and ...you do know that this page is about the American Civil War right? I really think you go off too far on tangents here. The point is that Paul is wrong; as he typically is.
@Rundstedt1 They achieved independence without war from Britain (canada). And as far as Slavery, and Indochina and so on, the point is it still exists, so if the civil war was fought to end slavery, it failed. Where are our shoes and clothes made? Why are they committing suicide in front of the gates of foxconn & etc in China? I mean, I don't know what you think of chomsky, but there was a popular feeling before the revolution that workers should own the factories- not communism, but
What it is, is idiotic and no historians would support you. To think that the slaves could have been just bought ignores all the events that had transpired and the mood and ideologies of the people. It ignores all the compromises that were tried, it ignores bleeding Kansas where the war was already essentially being fought over slavery. The South was not about to give up slavery no matter what, for as Mississippi put it:
"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." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
Or perhaps even more poignantly the Virginia secession commission stated:
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous"
@Rundstedt1 syndo-anarcy. And also there were the tariffs that disproportionately benefited the north and harmed the south . . . the old "masters" of the south were "compensated" for their losses and incorporated into the opposing, and newer, economic system of the north. So Paul is actually correct, there must've been a better way, because the civil war accomplished nothing as far as slavery that can be distinguished from the general movement into a new economic system- that of
Sorry the tariffs were paid mainly by the North not the south.
"The idea that the South would pay a disproportionate share of import duties defies common sense as well as facts. The majority of imports from abroad entered ports in the Northeastern US, principally New York City. The importers paid duties at the customs houses in those cities. The free states had sixty-two percent of the US population in the 1850s and seventy-two percent of the free population.
The standard of living was higher in the free states and the people of those states consumed more than their proportionate share of dutiable products, so a high proportion of tariff revenue (on both consumer and capital goods) was paid ultimately by the people of those states -- a fair guess would be that the North paid about seventy percent of tariff duties.
There is no way to measure this precisely, for once the duties were paid no statistics were kept on the final destination of dutiable products. But consider a few examples.
There was a tariff on sugar, which benefited only sugar planters in Louisiana, but seventy percent of the sugar was consumed in the free states. There was a tariff on hemp, which benefited only the growers in Kentucky and Missouri, but the shipbuilding industry was almost entirely in the North, so Northern users of hemp paid a disproportionate amount of that tariff.
There were duties on both raw wool and finished wool cloth, which of course benefited sheep farmers who were mostly in the North and woolen textile manufacturers who were almost entirely in the North, but it was Northern consumers who ultimately paid probably eighty percent of that tariff (woolen clothes were worn more in the North than the South, for obvious reasons).
Or take the tariff on iron -- it benefited mainly Northern manufacturers (though there was an iron industry in the South as well), but sixty-five percent of the railroad mileage and seventy-five percent of the railroad rolling stock were in the North, which meant that Northern railroads (and their customers, indirectly) paid those proportions of the duties on iron for their rails, locomotives, and wheels.
One can come up with many more examples." James McPherson, North & South, January 2004, Vol. 7, Number 1, page 52.
So most tariffs were paid by those in the North the only reason it was in issue for some was because of the nature of the plantation economy, so gain it all relates back to slavery.
@Rundstedt1 wage slavery, and often outright slavery, but in other countries. I think Paul is typically misunderstood, and I once felt the same way- reactionary. But upon consideration, and considering the history before and after, what he says is correct about the civil war, in my opinion. Yes, I'm aware he is addressing the civil war.
And fuck Off Paul would make us even more of wage slaves in his 'free-market' horror. He wants to turn the clock back to the 19th century and get rid of all the regulations and all the gains that labor has made over the last hundred years
Paul has been proven wrong about the Civil War even before he opened his mouth.
Go read an actual book by a real historian, again I recommend McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom"
@Rundstedt1 Thank you I have added this book to my list. Please note, you have a video of Zinn's on your page so I wouldn't think you would esteem that a "false" history book. How has Paul been proven wrong on the civil war before he opened his mouth?
@Rundstedt1 Zinn, Chapter 10: "In the schoolbooks, those years are filled with the controversy over slavery, but on the eve of the Civil War it was money and profit, not the movement against slavery, that was uppermost in the priorities of the men who ran the country."
So what? does that say that the cause of the war was NOT slavery, and money and profit are always important for the ruling class. Please check pages 188-189 where it explains that those economic interests were tied to either slavery or free labor, so again Slavery was the cause.
"The Slave interests opposed all that they saw Lincoln and the Republicans as making continuation of their pleasant and prosperous way of life impossible in the future" -Zinn p189
"First of all, without slavery there's no Civil War in the first place, there's no irreconcilable conflict, so that's a sine qua non.
Second, when people talk about conflicting economic systems, obviously the root of the conflict was that the South's economic system was based upon plantation slavery.
So one can't talk about different economic systems without once again coming back to the issue of slavery. That was fundamental to what the South was about." Professor Simpson
@Rundstedt1 As Cochran and Miller put it: Webster was the hero of the North-not Emerson, Parker, Garrison, or Phillips; Webster the tariff man, the land speculator, the corporation lawyer, politician for the Boston Associates, inheritor of Hamilton's coronet. "The great object of government" said he "is the protection of property at home, and respect and renown abroad." For these he preached union; for these he surrendered the fugitive slave.
Look, the war was started by the south to protect slavery and the economic system that it supported, for the North it was to preserve the Union. So the war was started over slavery. NONE of that is disputed by Zinn in his book, nor by your quotes from it, and certainly not this one here.
@Rundstedt1 I never said Zinn said either of these things, but in fact in the quotes below you can see that, according to Zinn, those than ran the country had profit in mind over slavery. This is not to say they could accomplish this without popular, or moral appeal, it's only to say, as I've said before, that business interests took advantage of the situation, and to support Paul, made it worse than it could have been, quoting Zinn (Chapter 9): "
Look I never said, and nobody is making the claim, that the North started the war to end slavery. As a matter of fact the North didn't start the war at all. Lincoln's only objective entering office was to limit slavery and let it die a natural death. Do you know that? If the South hadn't seceded you would have had your eventual peaceful emancipation perhaps. But when the South left to protect it, it became necessary to end it to unify the nation.
Secession and rebellion was tied to slavery, so slavery was the root of the war and had to be addressed. But the South started an illegal rebellion to protect slavery, and if it had seceded, slavery would have perhaps lasted well into the 20th century and the race relations there today been more on the line of South Africa in the 1970. That seems to be what you want!
You seem to think that if the war somehow didn't happen things would be better, but you're wrong they'd be worse, much worse.
And Zinn is an excellent writer, and his purpose was to give voice to the little people in history, but read a standard history first, the nation was violently divided over slavery and had been for more than a decade, and that had as much to do with the very nature of the institution as the economics of it.
@Rundstedt1 "Hence, it was Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves, not John Brown. In 1859, John Brown was hanged, with federal complicity, for attempting to do by small-scale violence what Lincoln would do by large-scale violence several years later-end slavery."
Yes so what? You recognize that Brown was acting illegally right? Lincoln couldn't just invade the South to end slavery! He had no constitutional power to do that, and the country would have hung him if he tried. It was the actions of the South that made the war not only possible but necessary. You again seem to wish people to act not only as they couldn't but as was out of place for the time.
@Rundstedt1 I did read his work; Maybe you should work on your interpersonal skills. I wrote you a friendly email and you still insist on being an asshole. I've asked you countless times to be civil in your discourse, as have others. This is why you're affiliations will never succeed, and why communists were disliked by strikers and farmers during the depression: because they wanted to be in charge, thought themselves superior always, and were incapable of respectful dialogue .
I don't converse with capitalist Ron Paul Fascists, especially ones that take the side of the Slave loving South. And first of all, I'm a socialist, but communists were welcomed by many during the depression, and especially considering the massive propaganda against them, the positive receptions they did get was astounding. Perhaps you better read Zinn once again.
@Rundstedt1 AND I didn't say the south paid more in Tarrifs, I said they were per-capita poorer, and so it impacted them to a greater extent. Have you looked into hooked on phonics? I enjoyed my speak-n-spell when I was five. You would be a worthless teacher because you alienate those you talk to. Again, read my message I sent you. People like you are Marx, Lenin, Stalin, those who take personally anyone who disagrees or views things even slightly askance what you posit.
And the North imported more, why didn't the farmers in the west who would have paid as much per capitia in tariffs secede also? I'll tell you, because there was no slavery there and secession was tied to slavery, You can take a map and look for strongest areas of support for secession, and it will overlay exactly with the areas with the most slavery, proving in another way that it was not tariffs but slavery that drove secession
"Generally speaking, protective tariffs protect domestic economic interests from foreign competition by raising the price of foreign-produced goods above the price of their domestically-produced counterpart in the marketplace. Low tariffs promoted southern economic interests, namely the export of cotton produced and harvested by slaves.
Nor were southerners opposed to the principle of the federal government protecting and promoting economic interests … especially their own. After all, they endorsed the use of the federal government to protect and promote their most important economic interest: slavery.
In pursuit of that interest, southern political leaders had supported measures looking toward territorial expansion (even if obtained through war and conquest) and the erection of a federal bureaucracy to return fugitive slaves through a process that abridged the civil rights of Americans.
In short, white southerners did not believe in federal neutrality when it came to supporting economic interests. They thought it was just fine when the federal government supported their interests, even if it meant committing American soldiers to wars of expansion at the cost of American lives or compromising the civil rights and liberties of Americans.
The economic interest they supported was the exporting of the products produced by the commercial capitalistic agribusiness known as plantation slavery. Slavery made possible that economic interest and made possible its profitability.
Ironically, it was secession that enabled Republicans to pass their ambitious economic agenda during Lincoln’s first term. The story would have been far different had the Deep South done what everyone before had done when they lost an election: represent their interests in the political process, and look to future elections for voter approval for changes in policy.
Let’s make this painfully clear: a low tariff serves certain economic interests just as a high tariff serves certain economic interests. Whatever the policy of the federal government might be as reflected in legislation, certain economic interests benefit, and other do not. One’s position of tariff policy was more often determined by whether that policy would serve one’s interest, and in the slave states that interest was tied, one way or another, to slavery.
In the upper South, where there was more economic diversification, attitudes toward tariff policy were more diverse, and it did not serve as a rallying cry (Virginians in early 1861 talked about the benefits of tariff protection as they sought to diversify). Not a single state in the upper South seceded in response to the passage of the Morrill Tariff.
In short, “the tariff” as an abstract principle did not cause secession. Indeed, southerners had accepted tariffs before, especially when they served southern interests. They had also welcomed other forms of federal support on behalf of their economic interests. Those economic interests, in turn, were fundamentally shaped by the presence of plantation slavery.
No slavery, no plantations, and the course of southern economic development (and thus southern responses to federal legislation to shape that development) would have been fundamentally different.
TRY AS YOU MIGHT, SOMEHOW IT ALL COMES BACK, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, TO SLAVERY and the efforts of secessionists to protect it through secession." Professor Brooks D. Simpson
Oh and I've shown over and over again how Paul is wrong you really want it again?
To think that the slaves could have been just bought ignores all the events that had transpired and the mood and ideologies of the people. It ignores all the compromises that were tried, it ignores bleeding Kansas where the war was already essentially being fought over slavery. The South was not about to give up slavery no matter what, for as Mississippi put it:
"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." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
Or perhaps even more poignantly the Virginia secession commission stated:
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous"
And additionally again, Lincoln floated compensated emancipation and there were no takers, not even the border states, he even still offered it as late as 1865 at the Hampton Roads conference and the South turned it down, because to keep slavery and expand it, was the entire reason they were fighting.
Paul and you are incredibly ignorant of history to make such a foolish and unsupportable argument.
@Rundstedt1 "David Donald in his magisterial biography of Lincoln asserts that the president did not expect to achieve any real results at Hampton Roads. According to Donald, Lincoln's purpose in meeting with the rebel commissioners was not peacemaking; it was "to undermine the Jefferson Davis administration" by appealing to the discontented Southern masses' longing for peace.
No he didn't, the conference wasn't even his idea, the war was near its conclusion and he was really using it as a way of asking the South to surrender and to make clear that their situation was hopeless. But that doesn't mean that the offer wasn't made, or would not have been stood by. And so then, so what? compensation was still offered and turned down once again.
@Rundstedt1 "He wanted to raise their hopes, if necessary through a campaign of misinformation," including the prospect "that at least the remnants of their 'peculiar institution' could still be saved."
I don't know where this quote comes from or what you imply by it, and I don't care, by the time of Hampton roads slavery is dead, Lincoln had stated that the promise of freedom for the slaves would not be rescinded, the 'remnants' that are being spoken of are clearly the compensation that was offered, as the 13th amendment was already being worked on and there was no going back, the North was not going to allow slavery to continue.
@Rundstedt1 If by "floated" you mean implied, subject to congressional approval, at Hampton Roads, then OK. If you mean the Delaware proposal, the one slave state that remained loyal to the Union, then OK. If you mean a concerted effort by those in power to collectively fund/compensate (not saying they deserve it) the southern slave owners, then no, you are wrong. The north gradually phased out traditional slavery for wage-slavery, and you're saying the south could not do this?
Yea the South might have eventually phased out slavery..... In another 30-50 years! But they seceded and caused the war to protect it instead. But anyway, you're saying you're comfortable with bondage slavery being around for another half century, perhaps longer! After all what aristocrats have given up such an economic bonanza without a fight? Yea free labor, they'll just give that up. It's foolish of you, and that is why you have long run out my patience.
And again, compensation was offered, the reason you don't see it move farther than you do, is because it got no interest, particularly in the South! They were more interested in fighting to maintain and expand slavery than end it in any fashion!
"Compared with later developments, Lincoln's proposal to Delaware, ... seems cautious indeed. Yet in November 1861, when no significant military action has taken place, it as a BOLD INITIATIVE. [emphasis added] Never before had a president committed the federal government to promoting abolition." Eric Foner, "The Fiery Trial, Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery" P183
So you seem to think that something that could not have been possibly done should just manifest itself out of the blue. Lincoln's actions were monumental, and yet you wnat somehow something even more radical the just appear and be accepted when the nation was and had been split over the issue of slavery
Now I already have shown that the South was not about to accept any sort of emancipation, paid or otherwise. (and is you deny that, read again the Mississippi and Virginia statements) But the offer would still have been open to them even though it wasn't directly addressed to them. But beyond that, you seem to wish the people at the time to act in ways that were totally alien to them at the time.
Like the South would just accept some deal on ending slavery when they had been protecting it for decades with political actions and compromises and even trying to expand it into Cuba and Mexico by instigating a conflict and war of conquest. You seem to think you can take the people and their attitudes out of time and place, You wish to put present day attitudes into the past. That is fucking ignorant.
Compensated emancipation would not work because those who owned the slaves did not want it to work, and your ignoring all what transpired that the South did to protect slavery is just damn silly and stupid, that's not how the interpretation of history is done.
@Rundstedt1 Some said those who wanted to buy slave in the south could always buy more, but from the Confederate Constitution: "(1) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same." Yes, they could still trade slaves in the CSA, as did the north sell slaves to the south, or the
Geeze, the slave trade had long been banned in the US before Southern secession, the confederacy did nothing new, but did you understand when I told you that Virginia was the slave production capital of the world? "Virginians wanted to make sure that if white Southerners were going to buy slaves, they were going to buy slaves that bore the phrase "made in Virginia."" - Brooks Simpson
And what the hell are you talking about the North selling slaves to the South, slavery was banned in the North before the war, the selling of slaves was only in the South and some of the territories ( the latter of which was one of the contentious issues)
So Paul is absolutely incorrect. The South was not like England or France where slavery was in colonies and remote from most of the society. Slavery in the South was ingrained in the culture and economy to a much greater extent than in other countries. Four Million of the South's nine million people were slaves. And France experienced huge slave revolts and an entire revolution that involved freedom for all, before ending slavery could be accomplished. Hardly a bloodless affair.
@Rundstedt1 I continue: Western states (the Mexican "Purchsae"/ War of Expansion). However, the former plantation owners in the south were compensated AFTER the war. Your speaking of the bleeding Kansas . . they weren't fighting on moral contentions, individuals were angry at the political clout of rich slave-owners, which bought most of the land- they fought over a dysfunctional republic, the agent of which was the dollar.
And so what? the fight in Kansas still concerned slavery. Let's get this straight, when we say the war was over slavery we do not mean the morality of it. Nobody is making that claim, you are making that starwman yourself. But virtually everything that divided the nation can be traced back to the influence of slavery, so just stop, you misconstrue the meaning of the entire issue
Look if you think that the French Revolution wasn't a substantial increase in freedom than you have no idea what it was like during the monarchy, Yes the French revolution brought comparative freedom and substantially so.
@Rundstedt1 As to your accusation that such an idea is foolish and unsupportable, in addition to my other rebuttals, I offer this: "On February 14, 1778, the Rhode Island Assembly voted to allow the enlistment of "every able-bodied negro, mulatto, or Indian man slave" that chose to do so, and that "every slave so enlisting shall, upon his passing muster before Colonel Christopher
So what? That was Road Island in 1778 that has nothing to do with the issue, you again expect people to act out of their time and character, the South was nowhere near as progressive as Road Island. The English recruited slaves to fight against the Southerners during the Revolution and promised them freedom.
@Rundstedt1 Greene, be immediately discharged from the service of his master or mistress, and be absolutely free..." The owners of slaves who enlisted were to be compensated by the Assembly in an amount equal to the market value of the slave."
Again so what? Gee did the South? No it was not in their character. You again take people and concepts out of their time and place. Good grief, Road Island was perhaps the most progressive state at the time concerning slavery, you cannot transpose the action there to the South. Again, read about the mood in the south, the rabid protectors of slavery that were voted in time an again and held power there, you expect the impossible.
Again read what Virginia wrote on the eve of the war. It's not something that a state would write who are willing any time soon to consider any sort of emancipation at any time in the future. And your trying to trot out what another state did in different circumstances in meaningless.
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system if the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous."
@Rundstedt1 You should examine yourself, and how you treat people, calling them fools, stupid, incredibly ignorant &etc, and contrast this with those who WERE the rich slave-owners- including the north - because it would be most instructive for YOU as to how you treat others. I have lost patience supplying rebuttals and have also lost patience with your inability to grasp that there were manifold reasons for the Civil War, as there are for every war.
Sigh, again slavery had ended in the North your continuing to bring it up like it still existed in dishonest. and little do you know that the average slave owner was the yeoman and middle class farmer. And even the poor farmer benefited from slavery as they often rented slaves and for cheaper than they could employ a worker
"While slaves were concentrated in the areas where staple crops were produced on a large scale, the bulk of the slave owners were small farmers" "It is not generally known that 200,000 owners in 1860 had five slaves of less. Fully 338,000 owners, or 88% of all owners of slaves held less than twenty slaves." John Hope Franklin, "From Slavery to Freedom" p113
"[So] there was the hope on the part of most of the nonslaveholders that they would some day become owners of slaves. Consequently, they took on the habits and patterns of thought of the slaveholders before they actually joined the select class." Franklin, Ibid, p113
@Rundstedt1 I can only hope that this will help people get over their classically conditioned reactions to history, and to Paul, and to our relations with each other; we should be able to discuss our shared past without impugning or making enemies. If this were so, there would be neither war nor slavery. Paul is not incorrect, nor can he be proven correct- but he is thoughtful, educated, a polymath, consistent, honest, and respectful of others, which is more than you have been to me.
And you support Paul who would make us all far worse off, and more of 'slaves' to the elites in his garbage free-market nightmare.
And Paul is incorrect as I've repeatedly shown, official statements like those form Virginia I've printed show that the South would NOT give up slavery without a fight. And you and Paul are ignorant for thinking that magically they would all of a sudden change their mind.
And Paul is a bigot who published a racist newsletter for years didn't support Civil rights and would not even support MLK day. He wants racist to have the 'right' to be able to deny service to minorities and allow the religious zealots to take away women's right to control their own reproductive functions.
Libertarianism is the basis of plutocracy where an unregulated market makes the wealthy and corporations, the rule supreme. History has shown that the 'free-market' junk like there was in the Gilded Age only leads to concentrations of wealth and monopoly. Libertarianism is rule by money not by the people. In every case where 'free-market' principles were instituted the gap between rich and poor increased, as did poverty and brutal oppression.
Libertarians believe that the only rights that really matters are property rights, that inviolate private property is the only true measure of freedom. And so if you don't have any, too bad, let them find somebody else's property to complain on. They require flawlessness as the only valid standard to judge government: libertarianism, being imaginary, cannot be fairly be judged to have flaws. It is the philosophy that has, and is, underlying the elitist dictatorships around the world
A 'free-market' 'small gov't' state is a corporate fascist state where the corporations can do what they wish because there is no governmental power to restrain them. Filling the power vacuum left by eviscerated gov't they become the gov't. Libertarianism is fascist Social Darwinist rule of money, those with the most money can do whatever they wish while the working people suffer without assistance victimized by a market they cannot control.
Libertarians are the worst brand of rightist. Their idea of freedom is the market. A market for freedom means that only those who can afford it are truly free. Libertarians are the new ultra-right hidden in the alluring prose of freedom. But it is a freedom few can afford. It is the libertarian camp that wants all of our public assets destroyed; they are the radical privatizers who carry on the Neocon mantra while denying it. Those who believe gov’t doesn’t work have no reason to be in it
"The problem is that the laissez faire minus the crony capitalism has never happened anywhere on Earth that I am aware of. Someone clue me in? Laissez faire capitalism is always, or nearly always, crony capitalism. The state is the only thing to throw the criminals in jail, and laissez faire gets rid of the state. The checks and balances in Milton’s model do not exist because the state is gutted, deregulated and corrupted by money." Robert Lindsay
It is a feudal system you advocate for by supporting Paul.
"Under feudalism, the elements of political authority are powers that are held personally by individuals, not by enduring political institutions. These powers are held as a matter of private contractual right. Individuals gradually acquire the power to make, apply, and enforce rules by forging a series of private contracts with particular individuals or families."
"Oaths of fealty or service are sworn in exchange for similar or compensating benefits. Those who exercise political power wield it on behalf of others pursuant to their private contractual relation and only so long as their contract is in force. Since different services are provided to people, there is no notion of a uniform public law that is to be impartially applied to all individuals."
"Libertarianism resembles feudalism in that it establishes political power in a web of bilateral individual contracts. Consequently, it has no conception of legitimate public political authority nor any place for political society, a “body politic” that political authority represents in a fiduciary capacity."
-
Samuel Freeman, “Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism is not a Liberal View”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30, 2 (Spring 2002), 105-151.
@Rundstedt1 What we have now is on the verge of facism. Fundamentally, you want to be "right" so much that additional, or in some cases alternate views, are wholly unacceptable to you and make you angry. As to Kansas: I thought I was a typical westerner, always defending the south? =) The country was founded on slavery, Jefferson &etc, more so in the south than north because of the land features and that the north was the first to have major ports. I don't say the south is right and the north wr
@Rundstedt1 wrong or vice versa, I say war never solves anything, that our conditioned response to Paul is negative until we understand the results of our current path, and how he seeks to return to constitutional roots. You're so concerned about making yourself look correct in the "war was only about slavery" and the south committed "illegal actions", that you ignore and impugn all else. Did not rosa parks commit an illegal act? Did you not see Paul talk of MLKs opposition to the war on the rec
@Rundstedt1 ent debates? Also, you want to label people who support paul as blah blah blah . . essentially, or explicitly I should say, as fools, and you are wrong. I hope that no one such as yourself would come to exert any governmental power on people because you would just execute them if they disagreed with you, and then you try and demonstrate libertarianism is everything evil. I am a proponent of a constitutional republic, which we are currently not, as we are not equally afforded contitu
@Rundstedt1 tional protections. They exist on paper, but the encroachment of the federal government makes this impossible. Like on Syria, we say they do this and that illegal, but the press there has a different story to tell about the collective feelings of the populace, yet you would be there with the bombs loaded waiting to kill. I am against this, and Paul is correct is his assertions that he has the most numerous military backing amongst the candidates. There are two sides to every argument
@Rundstedt1 and if you just insult people or concede nothing but you are absolutely right in every assertion, and you've said slavery could've died off in 30 years, and it persisted afterwords with sharecropping (zinn), I should think it would still be better than the war, which killed 600,000, including ex-slaves, and cost how many billions? Yet you say to even entertain this notion is foolish and indefensible. Clearly, at the least, it is open for debate, but people like me piss you off. Well
@Rundstedt1 I have a feeling that lot of people piss you off, and I've tried to be friends with you, but you basically have interpersonal problems. Just practice treating people better, with respect, and then you will understand much more of Paul's tenets, because he has the most consistent record of anyone out there, and will be in a better position to discuss with other people your knowledge without alienating them. If you truly understood my viewpoint, we would not be discussing slavery.
@Rundstedt1 For the northern powered interests, they wanted to retain control (the union), for the south, they wanted to retain control (slavery), but just as in wars today, those in power think they can kill or bomb a country into submission for their resources or territory, and it always fails. So many years later, the failure of the collective whole to see the civil war as a manifold collection of causes and the north as legal, and the south as illegal, and so on, makes us blind and engenders
@Rundstedt1 hatred, even against those who had no aspect of it in their heritage (I was born in Portland, OR). You defend the north as some egalitarian mecca, and believe the french revolution made freedom for all &etc, yet you think we should be transformed into a socialist state because of the evils of libertarianism, which I don't even care what the fuck that means, a constitutional republic is good enough, if followed and guaranteed, and as you know, to get the support of the states, there
@Rundstedt1 were limits placed on federal power at the time of the revolution, now there's the federalists debates and so on. What recourse is there if the fed oversteps its bounds? Popular vote I suppose, if the votes are counted correctly. We have no formal slavery today in the south, yet there is popular talk of secession, of the federal government overstepping its bounds, and what can be done about it. Re-check zinn, Plantations owners were compensated. I don't have anything moret o say to y
@Rundstedt1 ou except try and be more patient with people and understand that, if you treat others with respect and do not look down on them, they can help to cleanse you as you can help to cleanse them with, what I concede to you, is a vast historical library. But you will not understand paul, nor be able to effectively communicate with people, if you continue so. I believe I have demonstrated what Paul stands for, that he also is well-read, and that not all who support Paul are crazy, else why
@Rundstedt1 the attempt to entreat with all the quotes and our discussion of Zinn and so on, at the very least admit that you are incorrect in your understanding of a "typical" Paul supporter. What you describe above is our great "system" as I see it today, which is why we need constitutionally protected mandates, and effective means to check the federal power. Perhaps it is time for a new amendment. I hope you have a good 2012 and calm down a little. Good day.
And France didn't end slavery until after huge revolts and an entire revolution that started about issues in the home country, that changed the whole system and made possible the abandonment of slavery in its colonies, so it can hardly be considered to have ended peaceably there either.
@Rundstedt1 Uhhh . . .they occupied indochina forever until the U.S. took over to foster economic concessions in europe . . this was 1953 long after the French revolution, and in fact goes back to world war II.
"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war. To the extent within the profession there's a debate about this, people will talk about other causal factors such as economic factors creating secession and the Civil War, but those economic factors always come down to a slave economy" Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston
@Rundstedt1 What of Britain's domination of India? What of the rubber plantations in french africa? Have you read "Heart of Darkness"- an excellent read regardless.
@Rundstedt1 Spam, spam, spam from the hysterical racist spraying the N-word. It's good that YouTube has Community Guidelines and other mechanisms for dealing with racist trolls.
They say it never meant the definition I explained.. They say it never existed., It's not good enough that I have a dictionary definition... and I even gave the reference... NOW, dictionaries with versions prior to these versions (prior to 2002, 2003) had the word ignorant as its first definition. Pick up an old dictionary prior to 2001 sometime..
This is a moot point. I proved that the word can be used as "ignorant" I explained that it is what I used it for. Calling me a racist AND a liar now?
The dictionary defines the N-word as "a word expressive of racial garnered and bigotry" and "the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English." that's why stupid racist spammers like the asshole Diablos use it. If the English language had a more racist term for black folks, he would use that instead.
@DiabloUniverse Yes, very good; you managed to find a dictionary (which, by the way?) that uses your definition as its ancillary definition. But I used THE English dictionary, the OED, to show that that is NOT the "original" meaning of the word, which you insisted it was. They trace it to a 16th cent. borrowing from Spanish, "neger", meaning "black", which was itself a borrowing from the Latin for "black". THAT'S the original meaning.
Diablo's claim of using the word as meaning ignorant has no merit even beyond the definitions he can now search up and try and stretch into, because it's not like he used it in reference to me directly, but instead used it to call me a "N****r lover." I mean good grief, the intent there is clear, and his usage there is not to call me ignorant, it was a racial slur upon a group.
Asterisking out the word but still using it does not change anything.
Do you know who Dave Chapelle is? A black guy. at the end of his "black white supremecist" skit his character divorces his wife for being a nigger lover. It was used in a racist context. Do you really think that what I have said was more racially crude then Mr. Chapelle? What it surprise you if I was black? Do I need to make a video to shut your hypocritical closet racist ass up? Why so offended?
@PatchesRips Merriam-Webster could not be any more clear. I guess it's a sign of progress when racists are ashamed to admit they're racist, even when anonymous.
The version of your dictionary that you get that from is revised and is not unabridged.
I cannot find any ONLINE versions of the dictionary prior to 2001.
Will it really take me taking a picture of an old dictionary.and showing it to you to prove my case? obviously you LABEL me as a racist and ANYTHING I say is going to be chastised by you so why bother? I already PROVED my point... then you got people arguing semantics about the original meaning of the word v.s.the origin
Someone who is hiding their racism, would not say "nigger" in public.
Someone who is not racist but is also not politically correct will use the word, and it admits nothing.
You do not think very hard do you? What is more likely .. that I am hiding being a racist by saying "nigger" then denying I am racist? Or telling you that I am not racist and just saying the word "nigger" to offend you?
You know all about being offensive.... RonPaulHatesBlacks is an offensive charge!
Paul is absolutely wrong. The South was not like England or France where slavery was in colonies and remote from most of the society. Slavery in the South was ingrained in the culture and economy to a much greater extent than in other countries. Four Million of the South's nine million people were slaves. And France experienced huge slave revolts and an entire revolution that involved freedom for all, before ending slavery could be accomplished. Hardly a bloodless affair.
By the way I never read those 11 quotes you made because you have not apologized yet... so I am just wasting more of your time.. and by the way you are a racist.
Disinfo agents such as yourself can only stick on one topic and I explained my intentions.... there are people who will readily admit they are racist, and are proud of it. I am not one of these people. So you can continue to badmouth me and cover up the facts that you were asked a question and told me to fuck off and can only accuse me of being a racist now instead of answering a simple question...and I can keep pointing that out, or you can stfu, or you can apologize.
The only issue being covered up is your unwillingness to apologize for STARTING the argument and being the first to use harsh words. Asshole. Can I call you asshole? Is that racist? Yeah I sent you a post with the word nigger in it, So? That is proof solid I am racist? LOL! Perhaps the context is questionable like larry silversteins "pull it" but do you see any racist stuff on my channel? How about in any other comments? I hardly ever use the word! Sorry but your wrong.
"I didn't start to call you a racsit out of the blue"
No, you told me to "fuck off" out of the blue for asking you a question.
And when I asked you if you were a nigger lover in a PRIVATE message it was meant to offend you, which it quite clearly did. Of course I am using the word nigger in its true definition (ignorant) and you think I mean it defined as "black people" and I knew you would think that.
11 replies and no apology anywhere for telling me to fuck off?
@DiabloUniverse "Of course I am using the word nigger in its true definition (ignorant)"
That is not the true definition of the word. The Oxford English Dictionary gives its etymology in part as "Some early examples of the form niger (especially in learned use) may perhaps represent a direct reborrowing of classical Latin niger, 'black'". Possible indirect borrowings also lead to that source.
You can say it means "popsicle" while you're at it, but saying it doesn't make it so.
The Lincoln cultists are bigger drones than the ones Obama uses in Afghanistan. You know you clowns are allowed to go get a life and some addiction therapy, or maybe a career flipping burgers where at least you would get paid for smacking your gums. Smh.
Rundstedt1 thinks killing 600,000 American soldiers, civilians women and children is a better solution than paying too much to release the slaves, because I guess in his twisted view there IS a price for human life.. and he is down with Abraham Lincoln, a known racist. Sick indeed.
Again Lincoln had the common racial attitudes of his time, to try and judge him by today's standards is dishonest and anti-historical. Lincoln was more progressive than most of his era and was repeatedly accused of being a 'black republican' with all that connotes and Lincoln was consistently against slavery.
Is a such a sensitive subject, I wish people would focus more on the future and not reopen old wounds.
stroberts11 3 days ago
He's so arrogant! Just like his cult worshipers.
nkelly1432 4 days ago
Ron Paul seems to forget that it was the confederate states that declared war on the Union, not the other way around. His position that the war was not fought over slavery is not supported by documented fact. It is a fact that the declaration of war stated that the reason was to preserve the institution of slavery. The Union never declared war and simply issued the Crightenton Resolution stating that the government wished to preserve the Union. Ron Paul's knowlege of history is lacking.
TheCommonMan101 5 days ago 4
Obviously Ron has not read the articles of secession (easily availible online) by each state. Most include lines that say the US govermenment was upending the laws of GOD by suggesting that the black man was equivilent to the white man. There were offers by Lincoln and others to not only buy the slaves but to ship them off to various places around the globe, southern states and some nothern would have none of it.
2ezee2011 5 days ago 6
@2ezee2011 AND that is also NOT THE SOLE issue addressed in the articles of secession.
Podaboba 20 hours ago
(1/5)
Paul is incredibly ignorant. To think that the slaves could have been just bought ignores all the events that had transpired and the mood and ideologies of the people. It ignores all the compromises that were tried, it ignores bleeding Kansas where the war was already essentially being fought over slavery. The South was not about to give up slavery no matter what, for as Mississippi put it:
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
(2/5)
"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." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
Or perhaps even more poignantly the Virginia secession commission stated:
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
(3/5)
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous."
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
(4/5)
And additionally, Lincoln floated compensated emancipation and there were no takers, not even the border states, he even still offered it as late as 1865 at the Hampton Roads conference and the South still turned it down, because to keep slavery and expand it, was the entire reason they were fighting.
Paul is incredibly ignorant of history to make such a foolish and unsupportable argument.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
(5/5)
So Paul is absolutely incorrect on all levels. The South was not like UK or France where slavery was in colonies and remote from most of the society. Slavery in the South was ingrained in the culture and economy to a much greater extent than in other countries. Four Million of the South's nine million people were slaves. And France experienced huge slave revolts and an entire revolution that involved freedom for all, before ending slavery could be accomplished. Hardly a bloodless affair
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
Slavery abolished in British Empire in 1834 (Slavery Abolition Act) through apprenticeships. The Act 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". Slavery was not illegal up to this point so the govt was not cooperating with criminals. It was rather, correcting the problem of slavery in a logical manner.
billdakelski 1 week ago
@billdakelski (1/4)
But that was the UK. The situation is the US was totally different. Slavery was in the colonies in the UK, not in the home country ingrained in the domestic economy and culture as it was in the South. To think that the slaves could have been just bought ignores all the events that had transpired and the mood and ideologies of the people. The South was not about to give up slavery no matter what, for as Mississippi put it:
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@billdakelski (2/4)
"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." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
-
Or perhaps even more poignantly the Virginia secession commission stated:
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@billdak (3/4)
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous"
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billdakelski (4/4)
And additionally Lincoln floated the compensated emancipation and there were no takers, not even the border states, he even still offered it as late as 1865 at the Hampton Roads conference and the South turned it down, because to keep it and expand it, was the entire reason they were fighting.
-
Paul is incredibly ignorant of history to make such a foolish and unsupportable argument
Rundstedt1 1 week ago 2
Comment removed
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billdakelski (4/4)
And additionally Lincoln floated the compensated emancipation and there were no takers, not even the border states, he even still offered it as late as 1865 at the Hampton Roads conference and the South turned it down, because to keep it and expand it, was the entire reason they were fighting.
Paul is incredibly ignorant of history to make such a foolish and unsupportable argument.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
Ron Paul isn't the sharpest tool in the shed...
nkelly1432 1 week ago
(1/4)
Paul is typically wrong on all levels here. The South rejected all attempts to even discuss ending slavery, including paid emancipation. And any comparison to other countries, like he tries, is just ignorant. No other country had slavery as ingrained in the society as did the American South, where some 40% or, four million of its nine million people are slaves.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago 2
(2/4)
In England, slavery existed only in colonies, it did not have the political power or cultural influence that slavery in the South had. And its political, cultural and economic power within the South was increasing, not decreasing. As evidenced by the declarations of secession, which I doubt Paul has read, the South was not about to give up slavery anytime soon, or even ever.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 I like the way you routinely post the EXACT same comments on every ron paul video every few days or so. I remember many months ago one guy posted "Wait one minute while Rundstedt1 opens up his word document." I cant remember who that was though? Remember him? He was the one against ALL government, the anarchist.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 I must read the declarations of secession, but you can't deny the growing industrial might of the north. Similarly, Canada achieved revolution without war. Same principle.
monoamine1980 1 week ago
@monoamine1980
Revolution in Canada? What revolution? ... and ...you do know that this page is about the American Civil War right? I really think you go off too far on tangents here. The point is that Paul is wrong; as he typically is.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 They achieved independence without war from Britain (canada). And as far as Slavery, and Indochina and so on, the point is it still exists, so if the civil war was fought to end slavery, it failed. Where are our shoes and clothes made? Why are they committing suicide in front of the gates of foxconn & etc in China? I mean, I don't know what you think of chomsky, but there was a popular feeling before the revolution that workers should own the factories- not communism, but
monoamine1980 1 week ago
@monoamine1980 (1/4)
What it is, is idiotic and no historians would support you. To think that the slaves could have been just bought ignores all the events that had transpired and the mood and ideologies of the people. It ignores all the compromises that were tried, it ignores bleeding Kansas where the war was already essentially being fought over slavery. The South was not about to give up slavery no matter what, for as Mississippi put it:
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@monoamine1980 (2/4)
"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." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
Or perhaps even more poignantly the Virginia secession commission stated:
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@monoami (3/4)
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous"
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 syndo-anarcy. And also there were the tariffs that disproportionately benefited the north and harmed the south . . . the old "masters" of the south were "compensated" for their losses and incorporated into the opposing, and newer, economic system of the north. So Paul is actually correct, there must've been a better way, because the civil war accomplished nothing as far as slavery that can be distinguished from the general movement into a new economic system- that of
monoamine1980 1 week ago
@monoamine1980 (1/7)
Sorry the tariffs were paid mainly by the North not the south.
"The idea that the South would pay a disproportionate share of import duties defies common sense as well as facts. The majority of imports from abroad entered ports in the Northeastern US, principally New York City. The importers paid duties at the customs houses in those cities. The free states had sixty-two percent of the US population in the 1850s and seventy-two percent of the free population.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@monoamine1980 (2/7)
The standard of living was higher in the free states and the people of those states consumed more than their proportionate share of dutiable products, so a high proportion of tariff revenue (on both consumer and capital goods) was paid ultimately by the people of those states -- a fair guess would be that the North paid about seventy percent of tariff duties.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@monoamine1980 (3/7)
There is no way to measure this precisely, for once the duties were paid no statistics were kept on the final destination of dutiable products. But consider a few examples.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@monoamine1980 (4/7)
There was a tariff on sugar, which benefited only sugar planters in Louisiana, but seventy percent of the sugar was consumed in the free states. There was a tariff on hemp, which benefited only the growers in Kentucky and Missouri, but the shipbuilding industry was almost entirely in the North, so Northern users of hemp paid a disproportionate amount of that tariff.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@monoamine1980 (5/7)
There were duties on both raw wool and finished wool cloth, which of course benefited sheep farmers who were mostly in the North and woolen textile manufacturers who were almost entirely in the North, but it was Northern consumers who ultimately paid probably eighty percent of that tariff (woolen clothes were worn more in the North than the South, for obvious reasons).
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@monoamine1980 (6/7)
Or take the tariff on iron -- it benefited mainly Northern manufacturers (though there was an iron industry in the South as well), but sixty-five percent of the railroad mileage and seventy-five percent of the railroad rolling stock were in the North, which meant that Northern railroads (and their customers, indirectly) paid those proportions of the duties on iron for their rails, locomotives, and wheels.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@monoamine1980 (7/7)
One can come up with many more examples." James McPherson, North & South, January 2004, Vol. 7, Number 1, page 52.
So most tariffs were paid by those in the North the only reason it was in issue for some was because of the nature of the plantation economy, so gain it all relates back to slavery.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 wage slavery, and often outright slavery, but in other countries. I think Paul is typically misunderstood, and I once felt the same way- reactionary. But upon consideration, and considering the history before and after, what he says is correct about the civil war, in my opinion. Yes, I'm aware he is addressing the civil war.
monoamine1980 1 week ago
@monoamine1980
And fuck Off Paul would make us even more of wage slaves in his 'free-market' horror. He wants to turn the clock back to the 19th century and get rid of all the regulations and all the gains that labor has made over the last hundred years
Paul has been proven wrong about the Civil War even before he opened his mouth.
Go read an actual book by a real historian, again I recommend McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom"
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 Thank you I have added this book to my list. Please note, you have a video of Zinn's on your page so I wouldn't think you would esteem that a "false" history book. How has Paul been proven wrong on the civil war before he opened his mouth?
monoamine1980 1 week ago
@monoamine1980
And where does Zinn say the South paid more in tariffs or that slavery wan't the cause of the war?
Maybe you should actually read his work first.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 Zinn, Chapter 10: "In the schoolbooks, those years are filled with the controversy over slavery, but on the eve of the Civil War it was money and profit, not the movement against slavery, that was uppermost in the priorities of the men who ran the country."
monoamine1980 1 week ago
@monoamine1980 (1/2)
So what? does that say that the cause of the war was NOT slavery, and money and profit are always important for the ruling class. Please check pages 188-189 where it explains that those economic interests were tied to either slavery or free labor, so again Slavery was the cause.
"The Slave interests opposed all that they saw Lincoln and the Republicans as making continuation of their pleasant and prosperous way of life impossible in the future" -Zinn p189
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamin (2/2)
again!
"First of all, without slavery there's no Civil War in the first place, there's no irreconcilable conflict, so that's a sine qua non.
Second, when people talk about conflicting economic systems, obviously the root of the conflict was that the South's economic system was based upon plantation slavery.
So one can't talk about different economic systems without once again coming back to the issue of slavery. That was fundamental to what the South was about." Professor Simpson
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 As Cochran and Miller put it: Webster was the hero of the North-not Emerson, Parker, Garrison, or Phillips; Webster the tariff man, the land speculator, the corporation lawyer, politician for the Boston Associates, inheritor of Hamilton's coronet. "The great object of government" said he "is the protection of property at home, and respect and renown abroad." For these he preached union; for these he surrendered the fugitive slave.
monoamine1980 1 week ago
@monoamine1980
Look, the war was started by the south to protect slavery and the economic system that it supported, for the North it was to preserve the Union. So the war was started over slavery. NONE of that is disputed by Zinn in his book, nor by your quotes from it, and certainly not this one here.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 I never said Zinn said either of these things, but in fact in the quotes below you can see that, according to Zinn, those than ran the country had profit in mind over slavery. This is not to say they could accomplish this without popular, or moral appeal, it's only to say, as I've said before, that business interests took advantage of the situation, and to support Paul, made it worse than it could have been, quoting Zinn (Chapter 9): "
monoamine1980 1 week ago
@monoamine1980 (1/3)
Look I never said, and nobody is making the claim, that the North started the war to end slavery. As a matter of fact the North didn't start the war at all. Lincoln's only objective entering office was to limit slavery and let it die a natural death. Do you know that? If the South hadn't seceded you would have had your eventual peaceful emancipation perhaps. But when the South left to protect it, it became necessary to end it to unify the nation.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (2/3)
Secession and rebellion was tied to slavery, so slavery was the root of the war and had to be addressed. But the South started an illegal rebellion to protect slavery, and if it had seceded, slavery would have perhaps lasted well into the 20th century and the race relations there today been more on the line of South Africa in the 1970. That seems to be what you want!
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (3/3)
You seem to think that if the war somehow didn't happen things would be better, but you're wrong they'd be worse, much worse.
And Zinn is an excellent writer, and his purpose was to give voice to the little people in history, but read a standard history first, the nation was violently divided over slavery and had been for more than a decade, and that had as much to do with the very nature of the institution as the economics of it.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 "Hence, it was Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves, not John Brown. In 1859, John Brown was hanged, with federal complicity, for attempting to do by small-scale violence what Lincoln would do by large-scale violence several years later-end slavery."
monoamine1980 1 week ago
@monoamine1980
Yes so what? You recognize that Brown was acting illegally right? Lincoln couldn't just invade the South to end slavery! He had no constitutional power to do that, and the country would have hung him if he tried. It was the actions of the South that made the war not only possible but necessary. You again seem to wish people to act not only as they couldn't but as was out of place for the time.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 I did read his work; Maybe you should work on your interpersonal skills. I wrote you a friendly email and you still insist on being an asshole. I've asked you countless times to be civil in your discourse, as have others. This is why you're affiliations will never succeed, and why communists were disliked by strikers and farmers during the depression: because they wanted to be in charge, thought themselves superior always, and were incapable of respectful dialogue .
monoamine1980 1 week ago
@monoamine1980
I don't converse with capitalist Ron Paul Fascists, especially ones that take the side of the Slave loving South. And first of all, I'm a socialist, but communists were welcomed by many during the depression, and especially considering the massive propaganda against them, the positive receptions they did get was astounding. Perhaps you better read Zinn once again.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 AND I didn't say the south paid more in Tarrifs, I said they were per-capita poorer, and so it impacted them to a greater extent. Have you looked into hooked on phonics? I enjoyed my speak-n-spell when I was five. You would be a worthless teacher because you alienate those you talk to. Again, read my message I sent you. People like you are Marx, Lenin, Stalin, those who take personally anyone who disagrees or views things even slightly askance what you posit.
monoamine1980 1 week ago
@monoamine1980 (1/12)
And so your evidence that tariffs impacted the South more per capitia is.... NOTHING.
Come we're waiting.....
This is why you piss me off so much, you pull suppositions out of your ass.
and just shotgun bullshit hoping some of it goes unanswered.
No, the fact is tariffs at the most impacted both equally as I have shown with McPherson and Simpson.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (2/12)
And the North imported more, why didn't the farmers in the west who would have paid as much per capitia in tariffs secede also? I'll tell you, because there was no slavery there and secession was tied to slavery, You can take a map and look for strongest areas of support for secession, and it will overlay exactly with the areas with the most slavery, proving in another way that it was not tariffs but slavery that drove secession
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (3/12)
"Generally speaking, protective tariffs protect domestic economic interests from foreign competition by raising the price of foreign-produced goods above the price of their domestically-produced counterpart in the marketplace. Low tariffs promoted southern economic interests, namely the export of cotton produced and harvested by slaves.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (4/12)
Nor were southerners opposed to the principle of the federal government protecting and promoting economic interests … especially their own. After all, they endorsed the use of the federal government to protect and promote their most important economic interest: slavery.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (5/12)
In pursuit of that interest, southern political leaders had supported measures looking toward territorial expansion (even if obtained through war and conquest) and the erection of a federal bureaucracy to return fugitive slaves through a process that abridged the civil rights of Americans.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (6/12)
In short, white southerners did not believe in federal neutrality when it came to supporting economic interests. They thought it was just fine when the federal government supported their interests, even if it meant committing American soldiers to wars of expansion at the cost of American lives or compromising the civil rights and liberties of Americans.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (7/12)
The economic interest they supported was the exporting of the products produced by the commercial capitalistic agribusiness known as plantation slavery. Slavery made possible that economic interest and made possible its profitability.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (8/12)
Ironically, it was secession that enabled Republicans to pass their ambitious economic agenda during Lincoln’s first term. The story would have been far different had the Deep South done what everyone before had done when they lost an election: represent their interests in the political process, and look to future elections for voter approval for changes in policy.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (9/12)
Let’s make this painfully clear: a low tariff serves certain economic interests just as a high tariff serves certain economic interests. Whatever the policy of the federal government might be as reflected in legislation, certain economic interests benefit, and other do not. One’s position of tariff policy was more often determined by whether that policy would serve one’s interest, and in the slave states that interest was tied, one way or another, to slavery.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (10/12)
In the upper South, where there was more economic diversification, attitudes toward tariff policy were more diverse, and it did not serve as a rallying cry (Virginians in early 1861 talked about the benefits of tariff protection as they sought to diversify). Not a single state in the upper South seceded in response to the passage of the Morrill Tariff.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (11/12)
In short, “the tariff” as an abstract principle did not cause secession. Indeed, southerners had accepted tariffs before, especially when they served southern interests. They had also welcomed other forms of federal support on behalf of their economic interests. Those economic interests, in turn, were fundamentally shaped by the presence of plantation slavery.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (11/12)
No slavery, no plantations, and the course of southern economic development (and thus southern responses to federal legislation to shape that development) would have been fundamentally different.
TRY AS YOU MIGHT, SOMEHOW IT ALL COMES BACK, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, TO SLAVERY and the efforts of secessionists to protect it through secession." Professor Brooks D. Simpson
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (1/4)
Oh and I've shown over and over again how Paul is wrong you really want it again?
To think that the slaves could have been just bought ignores all the events that had transpired and the mood and ideologies of the people. It ignores all the compromises that were tried, it ignores bleeding Kansas where the war was already essentially being fought over slavery. The South was not about to give up slavery no matter what, for as Mississippi put it:
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@monoamine1980 (2/4)
"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." - Mississippi, Statement of secession
Or perhaps even more poignantly the Virginia secession commission stated:
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@monoami (3/4)
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system of the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous"
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@monoamine1980 (4/4)
And additionally again, Lincoln floated compensated emancipation and there were no takers, not even the border states, he even still offered it as late as 1865 at the Hampton Roads conference and the South turned it down, because to keep slavery and expand it, was the entire reason they were fighting.
Paul and you are incredibly ignorant of history to make such a foolish and unsupportable argument.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 "David Donald in his magisterial biography of Lincoln asserts that the president did not expect to achieve any real results at Hampton Roads. According to Donald, Lincoln's purpose in meeting with the rebel commissioners was not peacemaking; it was "to undermine the Jefferson Davis administration" by appealing to the discontented Southern masses' longing for peace.
monoamine1980 6 days ago
@monoamine1980
No he didn't, the conference wasn't even his idea, the war was near its conclusion and he was really using it as a way of asking the South to surrender and to make clear that their situation was hopeless. But that doesn't mean that the offer wasn't made, or would not have been stood by. And so then, so what? compensation was still offered and turned down once again.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 "He wanted to raise their hopes, if necessary through a campaign of misinformation," including the prospect "that at least the remnants of their 'peculiar institution' could still be saved."
monoamine1980 6 days ago
@monoamine1980
I don't know where this quote comes from or what you imply by it, and I don't care, by the time of Hampton roads slavery is dead, Lincoln had stated that the promise of freedom for the slaves would not be rescinded, the 'remnants' that are being spoken of are clearly the compensation that was offered, as the 13th amendment was already being worked on and there was no going back, the North was not going to allow slavery to continue.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 If by "floated" you mean implied, subject to congressional approval, at Hampton Roads, then OK. If you mean the Delaware proposal, the one slave state that remained loyal to the Union, then OK. If you mean a concerted effort by those in power to collectively fund/compensate (not saying they deserve it) the southern slave owners, then no, you are wrong. The north gradually phased out traditional slavery for wage-slavery, and you're saying the south could not do this?
monoamine1980 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (1/7)
Yea the South might have eventually phased out slavery..... In another 30-50 years! But they seceded and caused the war to protect it instead. But anyway, you're saying you're comfortable with bondage slavery being around for another half century, perhaps longer! After all what aristocrats have given up such an economic bonanza without a fight? Yea free labor, they'll just give that up. It's foolish of you, and that is why you have long run out my patience.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (2/7)
And again, compensation was offered, the reason you don't see it move farther than you do, is because it got no interest, particularly in the South! They were more interested in fighting to maintain and expand slavery than end it in any fashion!
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (3/7)
"Compared with later developments, Lincoln's proposal to Delaware, ... seems cautious indeed. Yet in November 1861, when no significant military action has taken place, it as a BOLD INITIATIVE. [emphasis added] Never before had a president committed the federal government to promoting abolition." Eric Foner, "The Fiery Trial, Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery" P183
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (4/7)
So you seem to think that something that could not have been possibly done should just manifest itself out of the blue. Lincoln's actions were monumental, and yet you wnat somehow something even more radical the just appear and be accepted when the nation was and had been split over the issue of slavery
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (5/7)
Now I already have shown that the South was not about to accept any sort of emancipation, paid or otherwise. (and is you deny that, read again the Mississippi and Virginia statements) But the offer would still have been open to them even though it wasn't directly addressed to them. But beyond that, you seem to wish the people at the time to act in ways that were totally alien to them at the time.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (6/7)
Like the South would just accept some deal on ending slavery when they had been protecting it for decades with political actions and compromises and even trying to expand it into Cuba and Mexico by instigating a conflict and war of conquest. You seem to think you can take the people and their attitudes out of time and place, You wish to put present day attitudes into the past. That is fucking ignorant.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (7/7)
Compensated emancipation would not work because those who owned the slaves did not want it to work, and your ignoring all what transpired that the South did to protect slavery is just damn silly and stupid, that's not how the interpretation of history is done.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 Some said those who wanted to buy slave in the south could always buy more, but from the Confederate Constitution: "(1) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same." Yes, they could still trade slaves in the CSA, as did the north sell slaves to the south, or the
monoamine1980 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (1/2)
Geeze, the slave trade had long been banned in the US before Southern secession, the confederacy did nothing new, but did you understand when I told you that Virginia was the slave production capital of the world? "Virginians wanted to make sure that if white Southerners were going to buy slaves, they were going to buy slaves that bore the phrase "made in Virginia."" - Brooks Simpson
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (2/2)
And what the hell are you talking about the North selling slaves to the South, slavery was banned in the North before the war, the selling of slaves was only in the South and some of the territories ( the latter of which was one of the contentious issues)
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamin (5/4)
So Paul is absolutely incorrect. The South was not like England or France where slavery was in colonies and remote from most of the society. Slavery in the South was ingrained in the culture and economy to a much greater extent than in other countries. Four Million of the South's nine million people were slaves. And France experienced huge slave revolts and an entire revolution that involved freedom for all, before ending slavery could be accomplished. Hardly a bloodless affair.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 I continue: Western states (the Mexican "Purchsae"/ War of Expansion). However, the former plantation owners in the south were compensated AFTER the war. Your speaking of the bleeding Kansas . . they weren't fighting on moral contentions, individuals were angry at the political clout of rich slave-owners, which bought most of the land- they fought over a dysfunctional republic, the agent of which was the dollar.
monoamine1980 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (1/2)
WTF are you talking about here? do you even know? There was no compensation for slave owners after the war, just more shit pulled out of your ass.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (2/2)
And so what? the fight in Kansas still concerned slavery. Let's get this straight, when we say the war was over slavery we do not mean the morality of it. Nobody is making that claim, you are making that starwman yourself. But virtually everything that divided the nation can be traced back to the influence of slavery, so just stop, you misconstrue the meaning of the entire issue
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 As to France: Do you refer to Haiti or the French Revolution. You think the latter brought freedom for all and you call me the fool?
monoamine1980 6 days ago
@monoamine1980
Look if you think that the French Revolution wasn't a substantial increase in freedom than you have no idea what it was like during the monarchy, Yes the French revolution brought comparative freedom and substantially so.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 As to your accusation that such an idea is foolish and unsupportable, in addition to my other rebuttals, I offer this: "On February 14, 1778, the Rhode Island Assembly voted to allow the enlistment of "every able-bodied negro, mulatto, or Indian man slave" that chose to do so, and that "every slave so enlisting shall, upon his passing muster before Colonel Christopher
monoamine1980 6 days ago
@monoamine1980
So what? That was Road Island in 1778 that has nothing to do with the issue, you again expect people to act out of their time and character, the South was nowhere near as progressive as Road Island. The English recruited slaves to fight against the Southerners during the Revolution and promised them freedom.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 Greene, be immediately discharged from the service of his master or mistress, and be absolutely free..." The owners of slaves who enlisted were to be compensated by the Assembly in an amount equal to the market value of the slave."
monoamine1980 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (1/3)
Again so what? Gee did the South? No it was not in their character. You again take people and concepts out of their time and place. Good grief, Road Island was perhaps the most progressive state at the time concerning slavery, you cannot transpose the action there to the South. Again, read about the mood in the south, the rabid protectors of slavery that were voted in time an again and held power there, you expect the impossible.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 (2/3)
Again read what Virginia wrote on the eve of the war. It's not something that a state would write who are willing any time soon to consider any sort of emancipation at any time in the future. And your trying to trot out what another state did in different circumstances in meaningless.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@mono (3/3)
"African slavery is a vital part of the social system if the states wherein it exists, and as that form of servitude existed when the Union was formed, and the jurisdiction of the several States over it within their respective limits, was recognized by the Constitution, any interference to its prejudice by the federal authority, or by the authorities of other states, or by the people thereof, is in derogation from plain right, contrary to the Constitution, offensive and dangerous."
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 You should examine yourself, and how you treat people, calling them fools, stupid, incredibly ignorant &etc, and contrast this with those who WERE the rich slave-owners- including the north - because it would be most instructive for YOU as to how you treat others. I have lost patience supplying rebuttals and have also lost patience with your inability to grasp that there were manifold reasons for the Civil War, as there are for every war.
monoamine1980 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (1/3)
Sigh, again slavery had ended in the North your continuing to bring it up like it still existed in dishonest. and little do you know that the average slave owner was the yeoman and middle class farmer. And even the poor farmer benefited from slavery as they often rented slaves and for cheaper than they could employ a worker
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (2/3)
"While slaves were concentrated in the areas where staple crops were produced on a large scale, the bulk of the slave owners were small farmers" "It is not generally known that 200,000 owners in 1860 had five slaves of less. Fully 338,000 owners, or 88% of all owners of slaves held less than twenty slaves." John Hope Franklin, "From Slavery to Freedom" p113
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (3/3)
"[So] there was the hope on the part of most of the nonslaveholders that they would some day become owners of slaves. Consequently, they took on the habits and patterns of thought of the slaveholders before they actually joined the select class." Franklin, Ibid, p113
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@Rundstedt1 I can only hope that this will help people get over their classically conditioned reactions to history, and to Paul, and to our relations with each other; we should be able to discuss our shared past without impugning or making enemies. If this were so, there would be neither war nor slavery. Paul is not incorrect, nor can he be proven correct- but he is thoughtful, educated, a polymath, consistent, honest, and respectful of others, which is more than you have been to me.
monoamine1980 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (1/10)
And you support Paul who would make us all far worse off, and more of 'slaves' to the elites in his garbage free-market nightmare.
And Paul is incorrect as I've repeatedly shown, official statements like those form Virginia I've printed show that the South would NOT give up slavery without a fight. And you and Paul are ignorant for thinking that magically they would all of a sudden change their mind.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (2/10)
And Paul is a bigot who published a racist newsletter for years didn't support Civil rights and would not even support MLK day. He wants racist to have the 'right' to be able to deny service to minorities and allow the religious zealots to take away women's right to control their own reproductive functions.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (3/10)
Libertarianism is the basis of plutocracy where an unregulated market makes the wealthy and corporations, the rule supreme. History has shown that the 'free-market' junk like there was in the Gilded Age only leads to concentrations of wealth and monopoly. Libertarianism is rule by money not by the people. In every case where 'free-market' principles were instituted the gap between rich and poor increased, as did poverty and brutal oppression.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@mono (4/10)
Libertarians believe that the only rights that really matters are property rights, that inviolate private property is the only true measure of freedom. And so if you don't have any, too bad, let them find somebody else's property to complain on. They require flawlessness as the only valid standard to judge government: libertarianism, being imaginary, cannot be fairly be judged to have flaws. It is the philosophy that has, and is, underlying the elitist dictatorships around the world
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (5/10)
A 'free-market' 'small gov't' state is a corporate fascist state where the corporations can do what they wish because there is no governmental power to restrain them. Filling the power vacuum left by eviscerated gov't they become the gov't. Libertarianism is fascist Social Darwinist rule of money, those with the most money can do whatever they wish while the working people suffer without assistance victimized by a market they cannot control.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
(6/10)
Libertarians are the worst brand of rightist. Their idea of freedom is the market. A market for freedom means that only those who can afford it are truly free. Libertarians are the new ultra-right hidden in the alluring prose of freedom. But it is a freedom few can afford. It is the libertarian camp that wants all of our public assets destroyed; they are the radical privatizers who carry on the Neocon mantra while denying it. Those who believe gov’t doesn’t work have no reason to be in it
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (7/10)
"The problem is that the laissez faire minus the crony capitalism has never happened anywhere on Earth that I am aware of. Someone clue me in? Laissez faire capitalism is always, or nearly always, crony capitalism. The state is the only thing to throw the criminals in jail, and laissez faire gets rid of the state. The checks and balances in Milton’s model do not exist because the state is gutted, deregulated and corrupted by money." Robert Lindsay
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (8/10)
It is a feudal system you advocate for by supporting Paul.
"Under feudalism, the elements of political authority are powers that are held personally by individuals, not by enduring political institutions. These powers are held as a matter of private contractual right. Individuals gradually acquire the power to make, apply, and enforce rules by forging a series of private contracts with particular individuals or families."
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (9/10)
"Oaths of fealty or service are sworn in exchange for similar or compensating benefits. Those who exercise political power wield it on behalf of others pursuant to their private contractual relation and only so long as their contract is in force. Since different services are provided to people, there is no notion of a uniform public law that is to be impartially applied to all individuals."
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
@monoamine1980 (10/10)
In other words:
"Libertarianism resembles feudalism in that it establishes political power in a web of bilateral individual contracts. Consequently, it has no conception of legitimate public political authority nor any place for political society, a “body politic” that political authority represents in a fiduciary capacity."
-
Samuel Freeman, “Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism is not a Liberal View”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30, 2 (Spring 2002), 105-151.
Rundstedt1 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 What we have now is on the verge of facism. Fundamentally, you want to be "right" so much that additional, or in some cases alternate views, are wholly unacceptable to you and make you angry. As to Kansas: I thought I was a typical westerner, always defending the south? =) The country was founded on slavery, Jefferson &etc, more so in the south than north because of the land features and that the north was the first to have major ports. I don't say the south is right and the north wr
monoamine1980 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 wrong or vice versa, I say war never solves anything, that our conditioned response to Paul is negative until we understand the results of our current path, and how he seeks to return to constitutional roots. You're so concerned about making yourself look correct in the "war was only about slavery" and the south committed "illegal actions", that you ignore and impugn all else. Did not rosa parks commit an illegal act? Did you not see Paul talk of MLKs opposition to the war on the rec
monoamine1980 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 ent debates? Also, you want to label people who support paul as blah blah blah . . essentially, or explicitly I should say, as fools, and you are wrong. I hope that no one such as yourself would come to exert any governmental power on people because you would just execute them if they disagreed with you, and then you try and demonstrate libertarianism is everything evil. I am a proponent of a constitutional republic, which we are currently not, as we are not equally afforded contitu
monoamine1980 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 tional protections. They exist on paper, but the encroachment of the federal government makes this impossible. Like on Syria, we say they do this and that illegal, but the press there has a different story to tell about the collective feelings of the populace, yet you would be there with the bombs loaded waiting to kill. I am against this, and Paul is correct is his assertions that he has the most numerous military backing amongst the candidates. There are two sides to every argument
monoamine1980 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 and if you just insult people or concede nothing but you are absolutely right in every assertion, and you've said slavery could've died off in 30 years, and it persisted afterwords with sharecropping (zinn), I should think it would still be better than the war, which killed 600,000, including ex-slaves, and cost how many billions? Yet you say to even entertain this notion is foolish and indefensible. Clearly, at the least, it is open for debate, but people like me piss you off. Well
monoamine1980 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 I have a feeling that lot of people piss you off, and I've tried to be friends with you, but you basically have interpersonal problems. Just practice treating people better, with respect, and then you will understand much more of Paul's tenets, because he has the most consistent record of anyone out there, and will be in a better position to discuss with other people your knowledge without alienating them. If you truly understood my viewpoint, we would not be discussing slavery.
monoamine1980 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 For the northern powered interests, they wanted to retain control (the union), for the south, they wanted to retain control (slavery), but just as in wars today, those in power think they can kill or bomb a country into submission for their resources or territory, and it always fails. So many years later, the failure of the collective whole to see the civil war as a manifold collection of causes and the north as legal, and the south as illegal, and so on, makes us blind and engenders
monoamine1980 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 hatred, even against those who had no aspect of it in their heritage (I was born in Portland, OR). You defend the north as some egalitarian mecca, and believe the french revolution made freedom for all &etc, yet you think we should be transformed into a socialist state because of the evils of libertarianism, which I don't even care what the fuck that means, a constitutional republic is good enough, if followed and guaranteed, and as you know, to get the support of the states, there
monoamine1980 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 were limits placed on federal power at the time of the revolution, now there's the federalists debates and so on. What recourse is there if the fed oversteps its bounds? Popular vote I suppose, if the votes are counted correctly. We have no formal slavery today in the south, yet there is popular talk of secession, of the federal government overstepping its bounds, and what can be done about it. Re-check zinn, Plantations owners were compensated. I don't have anything moret o say to y
monoamine1980 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 ou except try and be more patient with people and understand that, if you treat others with respect and do not look down on them, they can help to cleanse you as you can help to cleanse them with, what I concede to you, is a vast historical library. But you will not understand paul, nor be able to effectively communicate with people, if you continue so. I believe I have demonstrated what Paul stands for, that he also is well-read, and that not all who support Paul are crazy, else why
monoamine1980 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1 the attempt to entreat with all the quotes and our discussion of Zinn and so on, at the very least admit that you are incorrect in your understanding of a "typical" Paul supporter. What you describe above is our great "system" as I see it today, which is why we need constitutionally protected mandates, and effective means to check the federal power. Perhaps it is time for a new amendment. I hope you have a good 2012 and calm down a little. Good day.
monoamine1980 6 days ago
(3/4)
And France didn't end slavery until after huge revolts and an entire revolution that started about issues in the home country, that changed the whole system and made possible the abandonment of slavery in its colonies, so it can hardly be considered to have ended peaceably there either.
Rundstedt1 1 week ago 3
@Rundstedt1 Uhhh . . .they occupied indochina forever until the U.S. took over to foster economic concessions in europe . . this was 1953 long after the French revolution, and in fact goes back to world war II.
monoamine1980 1 week ago
(4/4)
"Within the profession [historians] there's virtually no discussion or debate left of slavery as central to the antebellum south and the fundamental cause of secession and the war. To the extent within the profession there's a debate about this, people will talk about other causal factors such as economic factors creating secession and the Civil War, but those economic factors always come down to a slave economy" Dr. Eric Walther of University of Houston
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 What of Britain's domination of India? What of the rubber plantations in french africa? Have you read "Heart of Darkness"- an excellent read regardless.
monoamine1980 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Strong Centralized State"
Sounds borderline socialism to me...
indianajoneszilla 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Looks like I missed the party.
RevBillyRayCollins 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 Spam, spam, spam from the hysterical racist spraying the N-word. It's good that YouTube has Community Guidelines and other mechanisms for dealing with racist trolls.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 weeks ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Let me ask you this......
ARE THERE ANY ALTERNATE DEFINITIONS FOR THE PHRASE "FUCK OFF"?
Didn't think so.
GAME, SET, MATCH!
DiabloUniverse 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They say it never meant the definition I explained.. They say it never existed., It's not good enough that I have a dictionary definition... and I even gave the reference... NOW, dictionaries with versions prior to these versions (prior to 2002, 2003) had the word ignorant as its first definition. Pick up an old dictionary prior to 2001 sometime..
This is a moot point. I proved that the word can be used as "ignorant" I explained that it is what I used it for. Calling me a racist AND a liar now?
DiabloUniverse 2 weeks ago
@DiabloUniverse "Hmmmmmmmmmmm? Whats the matter hunny bun? hmmmmmmmmmmm? hmmmmm? hmmmmmmmmmmmm?"
Take a Ritalin, Garth.
PatchesRips 2 weeks ago 2
@DiabloUniverse "Perhaps it is distasteful to use the word nigger... even if it means ignorant"
I find it hilariously ironic that you think "nigger" means ignorant.
KayBeeEee1983 2 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983
Nigger
2.
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . a person of ANY RACE or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, IGNORANT, etc.
dictionary*reference*com/browse/nigger
DiabloUniverse 2 weeks ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks Sorry---racial hatred and bigotry. Auto-correct stinks.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 weeks ago
The dictionary defines the N-word as "a word expressive of racial garnered and bigotry" and "the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English." that's why stupid racist spammers like the asshole Diablos use it. If the English language had a more racist term for black folks, he would use that instead.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks
Nigger
2.
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . a person of ANY RACE or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, IGNORANT, etc.
dictionary*reference*com/browse/nigger
DiabloUniverse 2 weeks ago
@DiabloUniverse Yes, very good; you managed to find a dictionary (which, by the way?) that uses your definition as its ancillary definition. But I used THE English dictionary, the OED, to show that that is NOT the "original" meaning of the word, which you insisted it was. They trace it to a 16th cent. borrowing from Spanish, "neger", meaning "black", which was itself a borrowing from the Latin for "black". THAT'S the original meaning.
PatchesRips 2 weeks ago 3
@PatchesRips
Diablo's claim of using the word as meaning ignorant has no merit even beyond the definitions he can now search up and try and stretch into, because it's not like he used it in reference to me directly, but instead used it to call me a "N****r lover." I mean good grief, the intent there is clear, and his usage there is not to call me ignorant, it was a racial slur upon a group.
Rundstedt1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah, a lover of ignorance.
Asterisking out the word but still using it does not change anything.
Do you know who Dave Chapelle is? A black guy. at the end of his "black white supremecist" skit his character divorces his wife for being a nigger lover. It was used in a racist context. Do you really think that what I have said was more racially crude then Mr. Chapelle? What it surprise you if I was black? Do I need to make a video to shut your hypocritical closet racist ass up? Why so offended?
DiabloUniverse 2 weeks ago
@PatchesRips Merriam-Webster could not be any more clear. I guess it's a sign of progress when racists are ashamed to admit they're racist, even when anonymous.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks
The version of your dictionary that you get that from is revised and is not unabridged.
I cannot find any ONLINE versions of the dictionary prior to 2001.
Will it really take me taking a picture of an old dictionary.and showing it to you to prove my case? obviously you LABEL me as a racist and ANYTHING I say is going to be chastised by you so why bother? I already PROVED my point... then you got people arguing semantics about the original meaning of the word v.s.the origin
DiabloUniverse 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RonPaulHatesBlacks
Someone who is hiding their racism, would not say "nigger" in public.
Someone who is not racist but is also not politically correct will use the word, and it admits nothing.
You do not think very hard do you? What is more likely .. that I am hiding being a racist by saying "nigger" then denying I am racist? Or telling you that I am not racist and just saying the word "nigger" to offend you?
You know all about being offensive.... RonPaulHatesBlacks is an offensive charge!
DiabloUniverse 2 weeks ago
Paul is absolutely wrong. The South was not like England or France where slavery was in colonies and remote from most of the society. Slavery in the South was ingrained in the culture and economy to a much greater extent than in other countries. Four Million of the South's nine million people were slaves. And France experienced huge slave revolts and an entire revolution that involved freedom for all, before ending slavery could be accomplished. Hardly a bloodless affair.
Rundstedt1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
By the way I never read those 11 quotes you made because you have not apologized yet... so I am just wasting more of your time.. and by the way you are a racist.
A homosexual racist.
DiabloUniverse 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey! Answer the question!
uh... what question there was no question. You are a racist.
Uh, actually I am not a racist...
Yes you are!!!
Whatever dude... so are you going to answer the question or run away?
RACIST! everybody look at the racist! (points finger)
What a fucking distraction you are RUNdstedt1. (can I call you run?)
DiabloUniverse 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1
Disinfo agents such as yourself can only stick on one topic and I explained my intentions.... there are people who will readily admit they are racist, and are proud of it. I am not one of these people. So you can continue to badmouth me and cover up the facts that you were asked a question and told me to fuck off and can only accuse me of being a racist now instead of answering a simple question...and I can keep pointing that out, or you can stfu, or you can apologize.
DiabloUniverse 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DiabloUniverse "there are people who will readily admit they are racist, and are proud of it. I am not one of these people."
That makes you a coward in addition to being a racist.
KayBeeEee1983 2 weeks ago 2
@Rundstedt1
The only issue being covered up is your unwillingness to apologize for STARTING the argument and being the first to use harsh words. Asshole. Can I call you asshole? Is that racist? Yeah I sent you a post with the word nigger in it, So? That is proof solid I am racist? LOL! Perhaps the context is questionable like larry silversteins "pull it" but do you see any racist stuff on my channel? How about in any other comments? I hardly ever use the word! Sorry but your wrong.
DiabloUniverse 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Rundstedt1
"I didn't start to call you a racsit out of the blue"
No, you told me to "fuck off" out of the blue for asking you a question.
And when I asked you if you were a nigger lover in a PRIVATE message it was meant to offend you, which it quite clearly did. Of course I am using the word nigger in its true definition (ignorant) and you think I mean it defined as "black people" and I knew you would think that.
11 replies and no apology anywhere for telling me to fuck off?
DiabloUniverse 2 weeks ago
@DiabloUniverse "Of course I am using the word nigger in its true definition (ignorant)"
That is not the true definition of the word. The Oxford English Dictionary gives its etymology in part as "Some early examples of the form niger (especially in learned use) may perhaps represent a direct reborrowing of classical Latin niger, 'black'". Possible indirect borrowings also lead to that source.
You can say it means "popsicle" while you're at it, but saying it doesn't make it so.
PatchesRips 2 weeks ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@PatchesRips
Nigger
2.
Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . a person of ANY RACE or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, IGNORANT, etc.
dictionary*reference*com/browse/nigger
DiabloUniverse 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Lincoln cultists are bigger drones than the ones Obama uses in Afghanistan. You know you clowns are allowed to go get a life and some addiction therapy, or maybe a career flipping burgers where at least you would get paid for smacking your gums. Smh.
FastPonyGT 2 weeks ago
@FastPonyGT
*You know you clowns are allowed to go get a life and some addiction therapy*
Quoth the Ron Paulintologist as he paradoxically demonstrates his "point" by replying.
MikeM2608 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MikeM2608 = self admitted Lincoln cultist. Guilty as charged!
FastPonyGT 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MikeM2608 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FastPonyGT
If being a Lincoln Cultist means I'm not a Brainwashed-Revisionist-Ron Paulintologist, I suppose you got me. Guilty as charged. Good job detective.
MikeM2608 2 weeks ago
We weren't just fighting to free the slaves but to wipe out slavery all together. Ignorant statement Mr. Paul...
yukonnoka 2 weeks ago
Rundstedt1 thinks killing 600,000 American soldiers, civilians women and children is a better solution than paying too much to release the slaves, because I guess in his twisted view there IS a price for human life.. and he is down with Abraham Lincoln, a known racist. Sick indeed.
DiabloUniverse 2 weeks ago
@DiabloUniverse (1/11)
Again Lincoln had the common racial attitudes of his time, to try and judge him by today's standards is dishonest and anti-historical. Lincoln was more progressive than most of his era and was repeatedly accused of being a 'black republican' with all that connotes and Lincoln was consistently against slavery.
Rundstedt1 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Rundstedt1 2 weeks ago