Slogan!
We’re still on Ron Paul, not L. Ron Hubbard, right? It’s getting harder and harder to tell.
And I’m sorry, but you can’t be claiming Thomas DiLorenzo the economics professor from Loyola is the world’s leading expert on the US Civil War. Please tell me I have the wrong DiLorenzo.
Seems like that’s the guy. As hosted by Lew Rockwell.
Rockwell who was the editor of Paul’s newsletter during the time it wrote those racist things that Paul had never heard of but went on to endorse both personally and through is spokesman… and quite possibly the author of those racist articles himself.
Obviously a man who needs to take my advice and fuck some Jews, blow his mind right to pieces.
Historical fact - Madison could not have, as the Treaty of Ghent was already signed by the time of the Battle of New Orleans.
I’ll add at this point that I had no idea that Madison founded the Illuminati. I would also like to note, if I can stop laughing long enough to type it out, that the concept that Washington or Jefferson or Jackson were puppets of anyone may be among the most ludicrous thoughts that I have ever read on this board.
“Ron Paul: the Founding Fathers were puppets of James Madison. Vote for Ron!”
How in the name of God’s green earth can George III be a traitor? Treason is waging war against the Crown. George was the Crown.
This thread is just bizarre.
Good heavens, don’t bring good Canadian common sense into the thread. Sheesh.
Bizarre is good. I’m in need of bizarre amusement, and this thread certainly is supplying that.
Shush you. They haven’t figured out I’m Canadian yet, even with my tweaking about the Battle of Queenston Heights.
Not to mention wear and tear on the moccasins.
“I just hiked all the way from New Orleans to Montreal, and boy am I tired!”
“Ron Paul: Madison totally could have conquered Canada. Rote for Ron!”
I’ll bet his farts smell like liberty.
And yet Great Britain and many other countries banned slavery before the U.S. Go figure, I guess.
Remember how you said Ron Paul was going to win lots of black votes? I don’t think opposing the war that ended African slavery is going to help him here.
I am on record as being against the construction of the pyramids.
I am a fiscal pragmatist, vote for me.
On a serious note, the idea that the US should have bought the freedom of slaves is probably one of the weirdest things said yet. What, we should have confirmed that black people were property and paid for them? Who, exactly should have paid for them? At market prices or so that slave owners could recoup their investments and make a profit? What would have happened if we paid for all the slaves and then the slave owners just went and bought new ones?
The whole buying slave owners out instead of having a war is gone over in the other thread I linked to earlier.
But to sum up what I’m positive Galileo Galilei’s responses will be:
He’ll think they should have receivied fair compensation. (Mississippi at the time said that this was $1000 a slave)
It was already illegal to import new slaves so expect a comment about how if you had only read DiLorenzo you’d know that.
What he won’t bring up will be that even at $100 a slave it exceeded the 1860 Federal Budget by a factor of 5. He will not explain how this money was going to be produced or where it will come from. He will not mention whether we’d still have a Freedmen’s Bureau or the Civil Right’s Act of 1866, even though without those the “just shy of slavery” Black Codes would have gone into effect. He won’t mention Reconstruction, its necessity in bringing the South into the Industrial Age, or how it would have happened with a buyout. I believe the standard strategy is to all but deny Reconstruction ever happened anyway.
Since half of the Founding Fathers owned slaves they were violating the constitution they just wrote. Therefore you must think that the FFs were moronic hypocrites.
In the early 1800’s, IIRC. But there would be nothing to stop slave owners from selling off some of their stock to the fed in order to get a bit of liquidity (especially if they could turn a profit) and buying/breeding/selling new ones. After all, if it was a volitional exchange of property, some slave owners could’ve simply said “no.”
In fact, it would have essentially served as subsidized slavery. If your slaves get old or aren’t working as well as you want, just sell those ones off at a good price to Uncle Sam and then buy yourself some new, healthy slaves. Meanwhile you keep a few around as breeding stock and sell them to other slave owners who pay for them with money the fed gives them for their worn out slaves.
Don’t ask me to defend it. I’m aware it wouldn’t have worked. It’s Ron Paul who’s confused.
I’m not sure you could have used it to just slowly get rid of slaves and somehow never quite make it all the way. My impression was that they think the US Army should have knocked on your door, declared “eminent domain” on your slaves and cut you a check, and then gone to your neighbor’s.
Of course thats what the South was afraid of happening in the first place. I’m still unclear on how making the South’s fears come true would have stopped them from leaving due to fear of the government taking their slaves.
Honestly, Madison should have fixed all this back in 1812, if not when he singlehandedly wrote the Constitution. If he hadn’t been such a racist ass he could’ve prevented this whole mess.
Didn’t Britian actually do this when they freed their slaves? I have a vague memory that they paid some sort of compensation to slaveholders as recompensense anyways.
Not that I think it would’ve been a workable solution in 1860 US, for all the reasons people have already mentioned.
Yes, but the dynamics were different. Britain was able to act unilaterally to free a comparatively small segment of slaves that weren’t essential to their economy. The idea that the South’s economy would be ruined and their slaves taken away was the whole point behind defending slavery in the first place. If it wasn’t volitional, but mandator,y we just end up at the same exact situation; the fed wants to take the south’s slaves away and the south says that they’re go to war to prevent it.
Oops, I forgot Benedict Arnold.
