You were being pressured to explain your rather idiotic claim that had the South been allowed to secede by throwing out a quote of a book from a fairly obscure economist working at a fifth rate university and made a statement which clearly seemed to imply that this economist’s opinions were in the academic mainstream.
Hummel’s claim that slavery would have ended in an independent CSA is certainly a highly unorthodox view, his claim that the North would have become “a haven” for fugitive slaves shows either gross ignorance and a willful desire to mislead his readers, and his view that present day Americans are “enslaved” by their government(a claim he makes in the book) is very much not a mainstream belief.
Now, please explain why his views are actually “orthodox” within academia.
Now, you seem to want to excuse Paul for screaming “that man is a queer” after being led to believe that he was in the presence of a gay man propositioning him.
Now, he certainly had reasons to be uncomfortable with the way Bruno was treating him, but a man who’d just been mugged or carjacked would have far, far greater reason to be upset.
By the standard you’re setting, we shouldn’t be concerned if a 911 tape was produced of Paul calling the police to report how he’d just been robbed by “a nigger”.
Is that your position, that you have no problems with Paul if after being robbed he’d screamed, “Help, some nigger just stole my wallet!”
I don’t give two shits about whether the guy is respected in academia nor do i care what are some other claims in the book. I mentioned Garrison and said I didn’t think it was unorthodox.
Once again you dodge the content my saying he “shows gross ignorance”. What a scathing indictment coming from some cat on a message board.
Ok we get it. He’s a homophobe. A 76 year old man who is uncomfortable around gays in certain situations. Now do you got any more dead horses lying around?
This issue alone gives me ample reason to oppose Ron Paul’s candidacy, as a prime example of ideology trumping sense (he also parrots “vaccines are harmful” nonsense right out of the antivax playbook).
This is probably not the place to educate Will further on history, but Lusitania was far from the only U.S. passenger or cargo ship sunk by German submarines in WWI (including during the period of unrestricted sub warfare that was supposed to starve Britain into submission.
There are good books on the subject of how Germany managed to stupidly provoke America out of its stubborn neutrality in WWI; The Zimmermann Telegram is a good place to start.
I’m not going to address the whole thread, but this is one bit of ignorance that always annoys me:
This is simply factually, objectively, wrong, in the “look it up on wikipedia, or read the dictionary” sense.
“Isolationism.” and certainly “total isolationism” would no foreign trade, no international treaties … really, no embassies even; think Japan under the Tokugawas. It’s indeed basically impossible in 2011, and certainly not desirable, which is why nobody, including Ron Paul, supports it.
It’s true that he’s closer to being isolationist than anyone else running for president; that doesn’t mean he is one, any more than the fact that Obama is closer to being a socialist than anyone else in the race means it’s fair to describe him that way. In both cases, though, the term is used by the ignorant and/or dishonest as way to cast the person out of the mainstream.
Paul is as staunch a supporter of free trade as you’ll find; that alone explodes the idea that he’s an isolationist. And while’s he’s leery of multinational conclaves such as the UN, he’s all for diplomacy: as far as I know he’s the only candidate in favor of normalizing relations with Cuba, for instance.
He is non-interventionist: i.e., he’s opposed to trying to coerce, via the military or other means, other countries into behaving as we wish. Whether or not that stance is a “pro” or a “con,” is obviously up to you.
When did I say that it was. Germans had to resort to unrestricted sub warfare because of the illegal British brigade. Anyway. The policy Wilson adopted of encouraging Americans to travel about in a war zone on belligerent ships was insane. It was an obvious attempt to sway public opinion when there was an incident. As I posted, the Germans were upfront about their policies.
WTF!!! Slavery was never going to end without a war.
No, what Africa needs is peace and a democratic government. Africa is sitting on some of the richest natural resource deposits in the world, enough to build schools and higheways and airports and railroads. Enough to join the rest of the world but instead you have constant war and corruption.
I hope Paul wins the Republican nomination but he is more than “flawed”
Charity is great but charitable giving drops exactly when it is needed most, during recession.
Charity can accomplish great things but it could never take us to the moon, or build the national highways system or eliminate starvation in our country the way that the federeal government has.
In large part the war on poverty (as it was understood during LBJ’s time) has been won. Starvation is not even on the fucking radar and its not charity that got us there. Everyone can afford to go to school, charity would never be able to ensure that. We still have poverty but the crippling poverty of the past has stayed in the past and charity could never have accomplished that.
I hope that Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination and it doesn’t surprise me even a little bit that a 76 year old Texan might be a bit racist and homophobic. After all my 65year old NYC mother is pretty racist and homophobic while my 10 year old neice is fairly race blind and doesn’t understand why anyone would have problems with homosexuals.
With that said, the reason i want him to get nominated is because now that Bachman and CAIn have left the race, I think he would be the easiest guy to beat.
Thank you for admitting that your earlier claims that Paul only “might” be a homophobe were wrong.
I’d add that he’s also clearly a racist and while I can certainly understand why middle class and upper middle class whites might not really care what he thinks about colored people, to the rest of us it’s pretty much a deal breaker.
You’re making rather contradictory statements in this post.
On the one hand you’re claiming that you don’t care how out of the mainstream his idea are yet you’re also claiming that you think they’re not “unorthodox”.
Which is it?
That being said, why don’t you clearly explain your own reasoning on why you think that slavery wouldn’t last in an independent CSA and why people like Eric Foner, James Stewart, and the other major historians who think that it would are wrong.
I don’t care if it is an unorthodox view and I don’t think it is. Explain the contradiction.
How about instead of posting names you just hook me up with a small passage or article in which they refute my claims. This is one of the least amusing and helpful exchanges I’ve had on these boards.
That is one of our two fundamental issues that “plague our society”? And have “cost us dearly in wasted lives and treasure?”
Ya feel like explaining how exactly that is the case? Because it sounds like the kind of statement made by anti-Semitic goons who single out Israel for no reason other than that they hold jooz to a higher standard than everyone else.
Could you even describe to me what Israel’s foreign policy is (without looking it up on some website)?
After a lengthy dialogue with you I’ve yet to learn anything about why you think I’m wrong. You seem to be hung up on orthodoxy for some strange reason.
You’re asking for links to demonstrate that Eric Foner thinks that slavery in the US would have ended peacefully without the Civil War?:dubious:
Are you aware who he is?
Are you next going to demand links to show that Stephen Ambrose admired Dwight Eisenhower?
Anyway, I just asked you to explain why you were certain that the North would have become a Haven for slaves which it never was in our timeline.
For example, I assume you know why slaves from Kentucky and Missouri didn’t flee by the dozens into Illinois, Indiana and Ohio and recognize it had absolutely nothing to do with the 1850 law regarding fugitive slaves.
So please, explain why you think slavery would have collapsed so quickly in an independent CSA.