History

Rand Paul, the "Great No-Compromiser"?

|

Newly seated Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, on the Senate floor, pisses, refreshingly, on the grave of his 19th century predecessor Henry Clay, "the Great Compromiser," slamming him on compromising on the extension of slavery.

Sen. Paul also praises the great libertarian abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, and Henry Clay's more abolitionist cousin Cassius. (The great Cassius Clay fight with the Turner Boys is also colorfully retold.)

While admitting that no current issue rises to the level of moral significance of slavery, he still thinks too much compromising over government debt is a dangerously bad idea. "We can cut money from the military," he says, while also calling on Democrats to cut domestic spending. Merely freezing domestic spending is not enough, and "will do nothing to avoid a crisis."

"As long as I sit at Henry Clay's desk I will remember his lifelong desire to forge agreement," Paul said, but will also remember Cassius's refusal "to forsake the life of any human simply to find agreement." Is it just a moral jumble to conflate compromise over slavery to compromise over government spending? Will the inevitable political compromises of a senator come back to haunt Sen. Paul? (He could have done more to stress the very serious and widespread societal damage that can result from a government collapsing under the weight of debt and its discontents, or attempts to inflate out of debt.) Regardless, this was interesting stuff to hear from the Senate floor.

Watch the video:

NEXT: Whoopie vs. Blueberry Pie: A Dessert Battle Rages in the Maine Legislature

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I like it. Many of our legislators need to be reminded that compromise, in itself, is not a virtue; and that compromise in the face of an obvious, on-coming, but still avoidable disaster is outright immoral.

    1. Wait, are we talking about averting global warming?

  2. Is it too early to start calling him Future President Paul?

    1. To paraphrase Henry Clay, he’d rather be right than president.

      Or at least, right-wing.

  3. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

    1. Barry, you misspelled your name, it is actually spelled:

      Marcus Tullius Cicero

      1. Or more correctly:
        MARCVSTVLLIVSCICERO

        1. MARCVS.STVLLIVS.CICERO

    2. Some would argue that justice should be tempered with mercy. There’s a reason the Punisher is more of an anti-hero than a hero.

  4. While the Pea Tarty has been, and for the foreseeable future will be, largely disappointing; that it carried a Rand Paul in its momentum looks to be a great thing so far.

  5. The great Cassius Clay fight with the Turner Boys is also colorfully retold.

    Was that before or after his first fight against Sonny Liston?

    1. Certainly before he got drafted.

  6. ClubMedSux beat me to it.

    1. Ahh, repartee!

  7. Rand Paul would still rather have a zombie Henry Clay learning forward? at his lunch counter than a black person!

    1. Hey, Rach, have you yet gone after the protestors who voiced a desire to see Justice Thomas lynched?

      1. But it’s okay when our side does it!

      2. I wouldn’t mind a David Lynch movie about race-traitors, either.

      3. “lynched?”

        No one used the word “Lynched”, so there’s no reason to believe that the people calling for his hanging would not afford him due process.

        1. We’ll give him a fair trial before we hang him.

          1. He is a judicial terrorist, after all.

  8. We need leaders who share our point of view to never cede the moral high ground.

    It seems like many politicians shrink back in the face of a slimy statist mouthing some high-brow-sounding, but ultimately banal generalities.

    No, do not shrink back! We have the moral high ground!

    1. But they have the guns.

      1. I’m asking them to do something way easier than facing down a guy with a gun.

        I’m just asking them to face down sneering. slimy, condescending assholes like Chuck Schumer, with principled defenses of liberty.

    2. You underestimate my power!

  9. I didn’t see any maidens in that clip.

  10. Violent rhetoric! Neo-segregationist Rand Paul praises violent knife-wielding extremist!

    1. Yep, such hyperbole is coming, in fact my lefty friends bitch and moan about Rand Paul more than they do about Sarah Palin or anyone else really.

  11. Government debt is making slaves of us all.

    1. Oh no; sage’s Tourette’s has finally extended to his fingertips! I’m so sorry, sage.

      1. Hey fuckass, gimme a beer!

        1. Now, sage, what did we say about beer and fucking ass?

          1. Hey Epi, have you ever been dragged outside and beaten till you *tic* PISSED BLOOD?????

            1. Only once or twice. Why?

              1. You disappoint me. Also, I fucked up the quote, which should disappoint you.

                1. I am disappoint in you both.

                2. No, the fact that you quoted a Nick Cage movie that wasn’t The Wicker Man, Raising Arizona, or Vampire’s Kiss is what disgusted me.

                  You fucking up the quote is just expected.

                  1. Keep it up, and I’ll put on a bear suit and punch you right in your whore mouth.

                  2. The fact that you even thought of the suckass version of The Wicker Man is what disgusted me.

              2. And, it was voluntary on Epi’s part. Something to do with kinky BDSM, IIRC.

          2. Uh, too foamy?

            1. Very good, sage! Gold star!

              Now get back in your cage.

    2. in your pants

  12. raising taxes to help SOLVE public debt is compromising? news to me

    not that that should be the only solution – clearly spending needs to go down. But if you’re not willing to come to a compromise with the democrats on what factually would lower the debt (your very goal), then you’re not going to get spending lowered either

    1. Re: Edwin,

      raising taxes to help SOLVE public debt is compromising? news to me

      Among many other things that are also new to you, I am sure.

      not that that should be the only solution – clearly spending needs to go down.

      Ya think, fool???

      But if you’re not willing to come to a compromise with the democrats on what factually would lower the debt (your very goal), then you’re not going to get spending lowered either

      Meaning: If you don’t negotiate with the pimp, you won’t get pussy.

      Such principles, Edwin. Such principles.

      1. Edwin has no principles, only principals.

    2. Edwin|2.4.11 @ 11:29AM|#
      “raising taxes to help SOLVE public debt is compromising? news to me”

      I’m sure that’s true of about any principled action.

    3. How about we compromise, and only kill half the Jews?

      1. You mean all of the males?

        1. You mean all of the males?

          Is it anti-Semitic to think Jewish women are hot?

          1. only if it’s Golda Meir

          2. Frizzy hair really does it for me, even if the stupid ass political opinions you’ll hear out of more than half of them need to be grudge fucked the fuck out.

            Apolitical Jewish women are like angels in my book. I’ve never heard a single opinion from Fran Dreiser so she is like the top of my list. But then, my passion for frizzy hair is so overwhelming, I found Barbra Streisand to be bone inducing in that first Fokker movie.
            Good Lord, I’m messed up.

            1. I share your pain of loving the jewish girls.

              It must be some form of self-hate, to want to be abused so.

            2. Jewish girls are bad in bed.

              1. No Heller,

                You’re just a crappy fuck.

                1. Yes, yes, we know, no man compares to your Daddy in bed, please Rectal spare us the details this time.

    4. Increasing revenue (taxes) allows politicians to postpone spending cuts and instead, to (as historically been the case), increase spending.

      Increasing taxes also hinders economic growth, so revenues don’t actually increase.

      1. Re: Sam Grove,

        Increasing taxes also hinders economic growth, so revenues don’t actually increase.

        That’s too complicated an explanation for Edwin there, Sam….

  13. While admitting that no current issue rises to the level of moral significance of slavery[…]

    The health insurance purchasing mandate notwithstanding, of course….

    […]he [Paul] still thinks too much compromising over government debt is a dangerously bad idea.

    Especially since government does not pay for anything – WE (the stupid ones, the productive ones who pay taxes) do.

    1. Obamacare = slavery

      That says a lot about your moral compass.

      1. Hey, Kunta, go buy your ass some health insurance. And if you don’t, Massa Obama goin’ to punish you.

      2. Re: Neu Mejican,

        Obamacare = slavery

        That says a lot about your moral compass.

        It actually speaks volumes about yours… end justifies the means thing.

        By the way, I didn’t say “ObamaCare”, I said “the purchasing of insurance mandate”.

        1. Let us review:

          While admitting that no current issue rises to the level of moral significance of slavery[…]

          The health insurance purchasing mandate notwithstanding, of course….

          Indicates that you see the health insurance mandate of a similar moral significance to slavery. While, perhaps, I can buy into robc’s claim that it is a difference in degree rather than a difference in kind, your claim here is that it is at the same “level” as in, a moral significance of equal degree to slavery.

          It says a lot about you moral compass that it does not recognize differences in degree. Not all wrongs are equally wrong…not all virtues are equally virtuous.

          It actually speaks volumes about yours… end justifies the means thing.

          Having not given my opinion, but only commented on yours, it says nothing about my moral compass…and your are talking out your ass when you say I believe that the ends justify the means. Your idiot thing continues.

      3. A difference in degree, not in kind.

        1. Whenever this comes up, you need to re-post your fractional slavery argument, robc. No one has even come up with a feeble refutation of that, much less a valid one.

          1. I dont think I saved it, and it takes too much time to type again, but maybe I will try in a few minutes.

          2. Okay, here goes:

            A fictional 19th century country in which slavery exists much like in the US south, only the owners are mostly kind, christian gentleman, so they dont beat their slaves or make them work on Sundays and provide them food, clothing and shelter. But, they are still slaveowners and slaves are still slaves.

            The government of this country, seeing the future and wanting to avoid unrest decides to gradually eliminate slavery. Their first step is to buy 1 day of freedom for every slave. One day of week, each slave is free to work for himself and any money he earns is his own. If he saves up enough, he can buy another day of freedom (and so forth) and the owner cannot refuse, except for last day. Also, the owners must continue to provide the food/shelter/clothes.

            So, a plantation owner has a slave his is bright and industrious and has earned himself 3 days of freedom (original one plus two more).

            The owner goes to the slave with a proposal, “You are bright, you could make a lot more money in the big city than you can doing stuff around here, I offer you the following deal. Move to the city, get a job working 6 days a week there, pay for your own basic expenses and send me 50% (3 of the 6 days) of the remaining income. You will make more, I will make more than having you pick crops, and you will be able to make enough to buy another day or two of freedom.

            So he takes the guy up on it. He lives like a free man, he controls his own actions, works the job he wants, lives where he wants, but sends back to his master 16% (once he is down to 1 day) to 50% of his wages [after basic deductions].

            Is he still a slave? Yes, he is. Sure he is only a fractional slave, but a slave none the less.

            SF- dont know how that compares with the original.

            1. And here is the original, in google chat form with leftist friend of mine:

              me: Are you familiar with the idea that was “proposed” pre civil-war to end slaves by freeing them for 1 day per week and allowing them to earn money to buy other days of freedom?
              end slavery

              Al: lol
              that’s crazy

              me: I dont disagree, but it was a way to end slavery while respecting the [bogus] “property” rights.
              I think the price per day would have been fixed and anyone could have bought the freedom for a slave.

              Al: interesting

              me: it ends slavery within a generation just not all at once.
              I think new borns were free.
              Anyway, for some reason I was thinking about it the other day, and I thought of the situation where a guy was free 4 days a week. So, he picked cotton as a slave M-W and then worked as a blacksmith or something Th-Sa (Su was a day of rest).
              Anyway, his owner gives him a proposal “You could make much more if you lived in the city, instead of commuting into our small town, how about we make a deal, I own 43% of you, you move to Atlanta and work for yourself 7 days per week, but send me 43% of your annual income, for as long as I continue to own 3 days of you. deal!” And the slave agrees because he will make more with 57% of his blacksmith work than he did as a part time blacksmith.
              Moral of the parable – microslavery is still wrong.

              Al: indeed
              and therefore we are slaves to anyone to whom we pay a tax?

              me: anyone who claims a demand on our life. But that is just your conclusion from the parable.
              It has many layers. 🙂
              Jesus was better at the parable thing than I am…he didnt need to the long lead-ins explaining silly proposals that never were seriously considered.

              Al: lol
              good point

              1. I think I prefer the original version.

                Got to wordy in the new version.

                SF? Any thoughts?

                1. I think the longer one is better, you head off easy objections. And I think it makes the point that while a fractional slave and a serf (which is a form of slavery) are very close, they are different due to the property rights situation. (The serf owns nothing and must surrender a portion of his labor, the fractional slave functions like a free person in all respects except for the claims on labor and property through taxation.)

                  Of course, all of this is unnecessary if certain people had the intellectual honesty to admit that chattel slavery is not the only type of slavery that exists.

                  1. I like the longer version better as well.

                    Whenever this comes up, you need to re-post your fractional slavery argument, robc. No one has even come up with a feeble refutation of that, much less a valid one.

                    Plato’s beard:
                    There is a point at which whiskers on your face become a beard, but the boundary is hard to determine. The argument/response to robc’s parable is that at some fraction, the slave is no longer a slave, but that opinions will differ as to where the line is drawn.

                    1. Neu, the fraction at which a slave is no longer even a fractional slave is 0.0%.

                    2. prolefeed|2.4.11 @ 11:34PM|#

                      Neu, the fraction at which a slave is no longer even a fractional slave is 0.0%.

                      Prolefeed’s one whisker is a beard in his eyes.

                      One drop of Scots blood makes me a true Scotsman.

                    3. No, NM, one drop of Scots blood makes you a fractional Scotsman.

                    4. robc|2.5.11 @ 11:24AM|#

                      No, NM, one drop of Scots blood makes you a fractional Scotsman.
                      reply to this

                      Are not fractional Scotsmen, True Scotsmen?

                      I mean if a fractional slave is a True Slave, then…

                    5. I mean if a fractional slave is a True Slave, then…

                      If by “true” you mean “pure”, then no. A fractional slave is a slave. A drop of Scotsman is a Scotsman.

                      But true? Depends what definition of true you mean, doesnt it.

                      No one other than you has brought up the word true, stop burning straw.

                    6. But true? Depends what definition of true you mean, doesnt it.

                      No one other than you has brought up the word true, stop burning straw.

                      “True” in this sense means that you can use the word following (e.g., Scotsman, or Slave) without the qualifier.

                      If being a fractional slave allows you to be called/thought of as a “slave” without the qualifier, then at some fraction, you will no longer be a True Slave, but only a fractional slave. Just as prolefeed’s whisker is not a true beard, but only a fractional beard. At some fraction it will be a True Beard and you can just call it a beard.

                    7. Well, beards != slavery, so I will agree with Plato on bears while saying that 100% of the fruit of my labor belongs to me, and that slavery is different from beardiness.

                      That particular analogy does not apply.

                      But, yes, any fractional slave is a slave, the word fractional can be dropped at any time, and by your defintion the word true can be added.

                      Or, as SF pointed out above, their are other types of slavery than chattel slavery, so maybe its helpful to classify.

                    8. robc,

                      It is always helpful to classify if you want accurate communication. The idea that a fractional slave, as you have described it in your parable, is the same as the common usage of the word “slave” works against understanding rather than for it. Making the distinction can help you communicate a point about obligations that government places on individuals. Without the qualifier, your argument loses force as most people see a meaningful distinction between the two types of “slave.”

                    9. Well, beards != slavery, so I will agree with Plato on bears while saying that 100% of the fruit of my labor belongs to me, and that slavery is different from beardiness.

                      That particular analogy does not apply.

                      Oh, I disagree. It is a very apt analogy. You are trying to extend the concept of slave to include even a single whisker of “slavery,” but any attempt to leverage vocabulary in that way will lead to disagreements as to where the boundary between “fits definition of word” and “doesn’t fit definition of word” is. To try by fiat to declare a single whisker of slavery enough to call someone a slave helps define your own opinion, but does nothing to bring about consensus. The boundary is not sharp, but fuzzy. No amount of certainty that you can see it will make it less fuzzy.

                    10. The analogy isnt apt.

                      Its like the difference between binary and analog. The beard example is like an analog signal. With slavery however, either you are a slave, or you are not, there is no fuzziness.

                      And Im using mathematical binary here, not real world where an analog signal is used to approximate a binary signal.

                      And if you think the beard analogy is apt, at what point does the guy in my hypothetical story stop being a slave? Because I dont see any point where he isnt a slave.

                    11. The Binary/Analog thing is misleading. Think of it more like phonemic categories.

                      E.G., as you move the voice-onset time along a continuous scale a “t” will at some point be perceived as a “d.” That point creates two distinct categories, but the boundary between them is very fuzzy. There is a zone near the boundary where different people will perceive different phonemes even when the voice-onset time is the same.

                      Shorter version…in your parable, everyone ends up as a slave. There are no non-slaves.

                    12. 10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.” — 1st Samuel 8:10-18 (emphasis by robc)

                      Random Jewish wise dude thinks that at 10% you are a slave.

                      And in case of obvious response, I give you Romans 6:22 and say “duh”.

              2. So we’re born free and sell ourselves into slavery by agreeing to pay an income tax. Fuck. I knew it already but this is just another way to ruin my weekend.

                1. Nick, doing something under duress is not the same thing as agreeing to it. I pay the portions of my taxes that goes to support the programs of government that are not done with my consent only under threat of force.

                  Getting beat up for your lunch money is a moral failing on the bully’s part, not yours.

                  1. I have fought back against bully’s before. I feel dirty by paying my taxes and not really fighting back. Wanting to and still not doing it don’t make me feel better, worse perhaps.

            2. I pay 35 percent of my income in taxes. Am I a fractional slave?

              1. You pay a hell of a lot more than 35 percent – you just don’t realize it. End-users pay all the taxes in this country. All taxes – from a company’s payroll taxes to the taxes a worker pays out of his salary, all fees,licenses, permits,excises,and tariffs – all of it – is passed on in the price of goods and services and paid by the final purchaser.

              2. Its a parable, draw your own conclusion.

  14. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.

      1. Or to put it another way:

        If you dance with the devil the devil doesn’t change, the devil changes you.

        1. I’ll change that bitch. It’s all in the hips.

    1. “There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender?the recognition of his right to one’s property.

      “Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise [on basic principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim.”

      1. Too bad Rand compromised the principle of non-coercion because of her fear of anarchy.

  15. raising taxes to help SOLVE public debt is compromising?

    Indeed it is. We pay plenty of taxes now. The deficit can be completely eliminated by cutting spending all the way back to where it was in 2003 – 2004.

    1. We pay plenty of taxes now.

      Not according to class warriors like Edwin.

      The rich do not pay enough taxes. How do we know this? Well, they’re rich. If they paid enough taxes then they wouldn’t be rich anymore and we’d all be equal.

    2. Well, at least they’re starting to admit reducing spending is an option.
      Here’s my idea…they prove they can reduce spending first, for a couple of years, THEN we’ll talk about raising taxes.

    3. I remember 2003-2004. Millions of poor people dead on the street, children running around with no schools to go to, and no paved roads.

      Is that what you want? IS IT?

      1. For God’s sake, think of the children!

  16. We could start by pulling the plug on NASA’s next billion dollar joyride. Mark Kelly can stay home and read the bible to his “tragic” wife, instead of whacking off in the Final Frontier.

    1. VERY unpolite and crude, but to the point!

      I LIKE IT!!!! My kind of comment!

    2. Some time back, I went to the cape for the “Astronaut Experience”, which was an enjoyable program of some 5-6 hours. A bit hokey, and Disney would certainly do a better job.
      But the PROPAGANDA! Every second sentence had to do with how the evil feds are pulling the plug on this MARVELOUS program!

      1. Do they kick you out when you clap every time they say the feds are going to pull the plug on the wonderful program?

  17. Is it just a moral jumble to conflate compromise over slavery to compromise over government spending?

    Like that has not happened before.

  18. OK, let me get this straight. There’s a guy trying to blow your head off at close range and so you give him a pass with the ol’ Bowie and gut his son instead??

    1. Clay’s other famous knife fight began under even less optimistic circumstances. Following an argument with Cyrus Turner, a local lawyer’s son at a political function, Clay realized that his life was in peril and drew his knife.

      There’s only one guy.

      1. Negatory. Don’t know what you’re referring to but:

        “…One night in Foxtown he was ambushed by Squire Turner and his boys…and as it misfired a third time Cassius Clay was able to reach into his belt and pull his Bowie knife and gutted one of the Turner boys…”

        1. Well NO WONDER they wouldn’t let him box for a while in the late 60’s! I never understood that when I was a kid – it’s all much clearer now, thanks!

        2. Ah, two different fights. Never mind.

          But they all ambushed him. Don’t want to get gutted? Don’t ambush someone.

          1. Or at the very least exercise a modicum of selectivity. The guy with the Bowie knife in his belt doesn’t make the cut. (Yes, I know…)

  19. Actually, Clay’s compromises held the country together for decades. It was Stephen Douglas’ “popular sovereignty” doctrine, which allowed pro- and anti-slavery forces to fight it out on the ground, leading to “Bleeding Kansas,” among other things, that unstuck Clay’s compromises. I don’t know if it would have been “better” to fight the Civil War in 1832 rather than 1860.* Does Paul want to fight a Civil War now? Would that help the deficit?

    *His dad, by the way, thinks that the Civil War was all Lincoln’s fault. Slavery would have disappeared anyway! Sometime!

    1. It did take a long and bloody Civil War in England to get rid of slavery, after all.

      1. The effects of the War Between the Brazilian States are still being felt to this day.

      2. Was that the First British Civil War or the Second? I always mix those up…

        1. Cromwell wasn’t involved, so…

    2. Secession was motivated by slavery.

      The war had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. It was to “Preserve the Union” (translation: show the states that the federal government is boss, and that they have no sovereignty whatsoever).

      The Southern states could have seceded because they thought Northerners talked funny and Lincoln still would have gone to war.

      The war had nothing to do with slavery.

      1. There was no time during the rebellion when I did not think, and often say, that the South was more to be benefited by its defeat than the North. The latter had the people, the institutions, and the territory to make a great and prosperous nation. The former was burdened with an institution abhorrent to all civilized people not brought up under it, and one which degraded labor, kept it in ignorance, and enervated the governing class. With the outside world at war with this institution, they could not have extended their territory. The labor of the country was not skilled, nor allowed to become so. The whites could not toil without becoming degraded, and those who did were denominated “poor white trash.” The system of labor would have soon exhausted the soil and left the people poor. The non-slaveholders would have left the country, and the small slaveholder must have sold out to his more fortunate neighbor. Soon the slaves would have outnumbered the masters, and, not being in sympathy with them, would have risen in their might and exterminated them. The war was expensive to the South as well as to the North, both in blood and treasure, but it was worth all it cost.

        1. You’re wrong about one thing, Mr. Grant: Many slaves in the south were “skilled labor.” There were blacksmiths, carpenters, potters, weavers and various other craftsmen and tradesmen whose produce profited their owners.

    3. STOP SPELLING MY NAME WRONG!

    4. Re: Alan Vanneman,

      don’t know if it would have been “better” to fight the Civil War in 1832 rather than 1860.

      Was there a civil war in 1860 fought in the US?

      I thought it was a war to reign in the Southern states, which means either a war of independence that they lost, or a war of Northern Aggression, which the northern states won. A civil war is between two or several factions fighting over the control of a government, for instance: The English Civil War.

      Does Paul want to fight a Civil War now? Would that help the deficit?

      Do you have a problem with understanding language? Because I think I don’t, and I did not construe or read or heard voices in my head telling me that such is what Sen. Paul wants.

      Maybe you forgot your Thorazine again, Alan…

    5. Garrison wanted the north to secede.

    6. Slavery would have disappeared anyway!

      In the same world that Bambi’s mom doesn’t die, Hitler enjoys of a life of artistic obscurity, and John Stagliano receives a public subsidy to continue making Buttman films in perpetuity.

      1. Re: Anonymous Coward,

        Slavery would have disappeared anyway!

        Dude, get with the program – slavery DID disappear by itself in many other places, because it is economically inefficent. Slaves are simply not as productive as paid labor, there’s no way getting around that.

        1. Re: OM,

          Any other places in particular? Slavery does not enjoy the legal protections it once did, however it still exists. And even if you assume that every historical slaveowner was ruled solely by what was economically efficient (which they weren’t), and that slavery is never economically efficient before paid labor (which brings into question why they engaged in the practice in the first place if economic efficiency was their primary concern), but slavery is as much a cultural phenomenon as it is an economic one. Simply put, slaves are, and have been, throughout history, status symbols.

        2. Dude, get with the program – slavery DID disappear by itself in many other places, because it is economically inefficent. Slaves are simply not as productive as paid labor, there’s no way getting around that.

          This doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

          1. This doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

            So you’re saying that complete slaves, who have all their earnings confiscated, are motivated to work as hard as fractional slaves who get to keep some of their earnings?

            This makes sense to you? Really?

            1. No. The productivity thing may be true…the “slavery DID disappear by itself in many other places, because it is economically inefficent” clause was the one I was commenting on.

              If it was economically inefficient it would not has sustained itself as a major piece of the American economy for a couple of hundred years. The demise of slavery is complex, but includes as a central component the increasing public awareness of the concept of liberty and freedom. I don’t think the economics of it were the driving force of its demise in any place where it was widespread. The economics, however, were probably the sustaining force that kept it in place against the rising tide of moral outrage.

        3. slavery DID disappear by itself in many other places, because it is economically inefficent. Slaves are simply not as productive as paid labor, there’s no way getting around that.

          Old Mexican,

          I almost always like your comments and insights, but this is purely wishful thinking.

          Slavery and lesser forms of compulsory labor have existed throughout human history and been the foundation of numerous civilizations.

          Compulsion is always wrong, that it provides benefits to some is irrelevant. Arguing that it is wrong because it does not or cannot provide benefits to a minority is misguided at best.

      2. Why keep the expense of maintaining all those slaves to pick cotton when one guy on a tractor can do it for a tiny fraction of the cost?

        Technology would have made slavery obsolete.

        1. A tractor needs a driver.

          1. I’m quite sure you’d get better results at a lower cost by employing a paid driver rather using slave labor.

            You’re really stretching here.

            What if the slave turns out to be a crappy driver?
            What do you do? Sell him and buy another one?

            With paid labor you just fire the guy and find someone else.

            Slavery just doesn’t make sense in an increasingly specialized work environment.

            1. Oh I agree. But that was true when there was slavery. As we see every day, some people just feel better forcing others to do things even if it’s less efficient than doing it themselves or paying someone to do it. Lots of humans suck and not in the good way.

            2. What if the slave turns out to be a crappy driver?
              What do you do? Sell him and buy another one?

              Sure, why not.

              Do you think plantation owner never bought and sold slaves based on their ability to perform manual labor more efficiently or to perform more valuable labor.

              Your concept of slavery appears to see the slaves an undifferentiated mass of unskilled labor. You have obviously never managed any labor intensive business. Further, you seem to believe that slavery in and of itself prevents any division of labor or high value added organization, but their is no historical evidence to support this belief.

              Slavery is wrong on moral grounds, not utilitarian ones.

        2. The cotton gin made agricultural slavery more popular, not less. And the antebellum South didn’t just have slaves in fields picking cotton and peanuts. The South had slaves building ships and railroads, making iron, processing sugar, and engaging in other industrial activities.

          Just because a new machine reduces your labor requirement in one part of your business doesn’t mean that you can’t reallot that unused labor to another part of the business.

          1. “Just because a new machine reduces your labor requirement in one part of your business doesn’t mean that you can’t reallot that unused labor to another part of the business.”

            Well, duh. That’s the essence of how technology and the division of labor increases wealth and prosperity.

            Slaves needed to be kept ignorant.
            They needed to be kept illiterate.
            They needed to believe they are stupid, no better than animals.
            Then need to accept their lot in live in the full belief that they belong there.

            As division of labor gets more and more specialized you need a labor force that is knowledgeable, literate, smart, and organized with aspirations of improving their lives.

            Slavery would not have been able to continue.

            1. Well, duh. That’s the essence of how technology and the division of labor increases wealth and prosperity.

              Sure, and it would have increased wealth and prosperity for the hypothetical slave owner. Division of labor would have required slaves to become more specialized, however, so long as the slaveholders could maintain the power to legally coerce their slaves and use violence against them, they were secure.

              How many “knowledgeable, literate, smart, and organized” people who think income taxes are illegitimate pay them anyway rather than have an IRS tax farmer jam a gun in their face and lock them up? How many people, who would rather not pay the income tax for no other reason than it inconveniences them, do so any way because of the threat of IRS trigger men and incarceration?

              1. I agree that the two are morally equivalent, but not practically equivalent.

    7. So many “Jefferson Davis” libertarians. I guess what you guys really miss is the “right” to own slaves. Why are 99.44% of libertarians white? I wonder.

      1. Re: Alan Vanneman,

        So many “Jefferson Davis” libertarians.

        I’m not an American, dude.

        I guess what you guys really miss is the “right” to own slaves.

        Impeccable logic, Alan! You, sir, walk among the great logicians of yore!

        While you’re at it, why don’t you goggle “logical fallacy” and learn to argue, for a change?

        Dumbell.

      2. My God, how can someone be against de jure humans by other humans AND de facto ownership by the State? Why its almost like there’s a consistent thread of self-ownership running through that sentiment.

    8. The Missouri Compromise worked as it was supposed to, and indeed held the Union together for several decades. The Compromise of 1850, not so much, It fell apart in the mid 1850s and I question whether it was worth it in the first place.

  20. Following an argument with Cyrus Turner, a local lawyer’s son at a political function, Clay realized that his life was in peril and drew his knife.

    Violent eliminationist teabaggers. They’re everywhere.

    1. Bowie knives seem attracted to the guts cops and lawyers. Jim Bowie made the knife famous gutting a sheriff. Or maybe the gut is just so prominant.

    1. plumber107 on 03.02.2011 at 17:25 (Reply)
      This “CLOWN” is just getting started. I am from KY. and this “MAD DR.” scared me with his views from cutting the health&human; services to allowing any business to discriminate against anyone for any reason, saying if you didn’t agree with them just simply don’t shop there.He wants to stop OSHA and the food & drug adm.., who check food and drug safety, saying that the business people were responsible and didn’t need Goverment oversite. We as union members who have fought for safety in the workplace and only with Democratic support,none from the right should call him out on these crazy ideas. He has enough money to keep his family safe from tainted food and drugs but most of us don’t. I hope that the people of KY. will watch and see this man for what and who he is. Thanks?

      1. Awesome…!!

      2. I know the pharmaceutical company I worked at was just waiting for the FDA to go away so they could start poisoning all their customers.

      3. No one ever said that liberty didn’t require responsibility.

        Let’s assume that I open a restaurant and I am allowed to hang up a sign that says “No blacks allowed.”

        You think I’m going to stay in business or recoup my investment?

        Ha.

  21. Fuck the AFL-CIO.

    1. While we’re at it, fuck California. I hadn’t said that in a while, and your comment reminded me that it needs to be said – thanks!

      1. While we’re at it, fuck California.

        I think you might have to wait a awhile until it is done fucking itself.

      2. You don’t need to fuck California, California is fucking itself.

    2. Agreed. They’ve been down the block all week with their giant inflatable “Scabby the Rat” protesting the non-union work being done on a building. Of course, they’ve hired homeless guys to do the actual marching.

      1. Homeless guys who are not allowed to unionize, of course.

  22. “Is it just a moral jumble to conflate compromise over slavery to compromise over government spending?”

    I think this is a bit spot on, and I like Paul (and his dad). I get what he is saying, compromise in itself is not always good. But compromise over a budget in a representative system is different than compromise over slavery. We can all look back now with hindsight and acknowledge the horrible wrong that was slavery, but at that time the no-compromisers, the abolitionists and the champions of slavery, came off like PETA does today.

    1. Re: MNG,

      But compromise over a budget in a representative system is different than compromise over slavery.

      They are different indeed. One is about the enslavement of a group of people by physical means, the other is about the continuous enslavement of a group of people by financial means. Totally different things.

      1. Oh Jesus, the Taxation=Teh Slavery thing again.

        1. Re: MNG,

          Oh Jesus, the Taxation=Teh Slavery thing again.

          No, of course not. Taxation is the violent taking of property that does not belong to you (i.e. thievery), whereas what I am talking about is imposing a debt and obligation to pay upon people and generations forward that did not incur in it – now, that’s slavery.

          1. “imposing a debt and obligation to pay upon people and generations forward”

            That’s slavery? You’ve got one wild dictionary there OM.

            1. Re: MNG,

              That’s slavery [the imposing of a debt and obligation to pay on a person that did not incur in it]?

              You tell me, MNG.

              Oh, I added again what I am saying so that you don’t ignore it again.

              You’ve got one wild dictionary there OM.

              You just won the “Head In Sand” award for today. Congratulations!

            2. Entitlements and slavery have something in common: someone is living at the expense of another.

              In the case of slavery one person is living directly at the expense of the other.
              In the case of entitlements there is a middleman called government.

              They are morally equivalent.

              1. Re: Sarcasmic,

                Leaving aside the morality of entitlements, what we’re talking about is imposing a DEBT upon people that did not incur in it, and the make them PAY. That’s indentured servitude. Why would *I* have to pay for a debt incurred by someone else? MNG does not think much of it, as his sight is blinded by his love for all things statist.

                1. Why would *I* have to pay for a debt incurred by someone else?

                  Social contract: you pay the previous generation’s debt, the next generation pays your debt, and so on and so on.

                  It’s not a Ponzi scheme if the government does it.

                  /snark

        2. Assume that you are a black male living in Alabama circa 1840. What happens if you refuse to pick ‘dat cotton’?

          Well you probably get your ass beat until you cough up your requisite bushels of cotton.

          Now assume that you are a middle manager in Virginia circa 2010. What happens if you refuse to pay “dose taxes”?

          Well you probably get sued, if you refuse to show for trial because the whole thing is a kangaroo court you get your ass beat by some nice police officer and then they forcibly take your shit, auction it off, and take the proceeds. All while you get assraped by “billy” in the prison you’re now residing in.

          Slavery sounds like the better deal there, at least there’s no assrape.

    2. Who cares what others thought of them? They were RIGHT.

      1. Yeah, so was John Brown, but he was also more than a lil’ nuts. And for every extremist John Brown there is nut that is wrong.

    3. Is it just a moral jumble to conflate compromise over slavery to compromise over government spending?

      It’s not a question comparability, merely degree. While government is not compelling people, under color of law, to live from birth to death as mere chattels, compelling you to contribute the product of your labor without your consent to the benefit of others (the health insurance industry, the federal bureaucracy that will oversee “proper coverage”) is certainly in a similar vein, only without the second-class legal status.

    4. I think this is a bit spot on

      Not really. He is simply co-opting the rhetoric of his opposition.

      He saw how Meddow dumped a racial non sequitur on his campaign and saw how it hurt his poll numbers.

      When your enemies adopt an effective weapon it is common sense to co-opt it into your own arsenal.

      Brian Doherty does not see it simply because he suffers from the common libertarian disease of being politically ignorant.

      You may see it but you are a left wing hack.

  23. Oh, just for the record – you know who else wouldn’t compromise….?

    1. He’s right, you know.

  24. I wonder what John thinks of this speech. To hear him tell it the 3/5th Compromise was second only to the Magna Carta in Great Things in History’s March to Liberty.

    1. Maybe you want to back off that, considering it makes what you are arguing in this thread an incoherent mash.

      1. I said it was a hardly a compromise to be celebrated. Perhaps you will show how I contradict myself?

        1. You defend Clay’s compromise from Paul’s attack by invoking temporal relativism, but the 3/5ths compromise is a terrible evil.

          You demand the perfect when it suits you, and accept the good when it’s to your benefit.

          1. “You defend Clay’s compromise from Paul’s attack by invoking temporal relativism”

            Where do I do that? I said it was silly to conflate compromise on the budget with Clay’s compromise.

            1. We can all look back now with hindsight and acknowledge the horrible wrong that was slavery, but at that time the no-compromisers, the abolitionists and the champions of slavery, came off like PETA does today.

              1. I meant they were seen as insufferable fanatics like PETA is today, willing to blow it up if it is not absolutely reformed immediately. That is how they were seen back then.

                1. I think you are missing the point about liberals and the 3/5 compromise. They bring it up not to point out what a terrible compromise it was (though it was not a good one as I explained) but to simply take some of the varnish of the Founders: the very fact that the same people who were expounding a vision of liberty had to make such a compromise is what they want gotten out of that.

                  1. Re: MNG,

                    the very fact that the same people who were expounding a vision of liberty had to make such a compromise is what they want gotten out of that.

                    Let’s say that the deal for the slaves would have been even less appetizing if the Southern States had said to the Constitutional Convention to take a hike.

                    1. So they did it for the slaves.

                      You are rich today dude.

                    2. Re: MNG,

                      So they did it for the slaves.

                      You are rich today dude.

                      You ignore your own history, dude. And I, a mere Mexican, am here telling YOU that.

                    3. There was no time during the rebellion when I did not think, and often say, that the South was more to be benefited by its defeat than the North. The latter had the people, the institutions, and the territory to make a great and prosperous nation. The former was burdened with an institution abhorrent to all civilized people not brought up under it, and one which degraded labor, kept it in ignorance, and enervated the governing class. With the outside world at war with this institution, they could not have extended their territory. The labor of the country was not skilled, nor allowed to become so. The whites could not toil without becoming degraded, and those who did were denominated “poor white trash.” The system of labor would have soon exhausted the soil and left the people poor. The non-slaveholders would have left the country, and the small slaveholder must have sold out to his more fortunate neighbor. Soon the slaves would have outnumbered the masters, and, not being in sympathy with them, would have risen in their might and exterminated them. The war was expensive to the South as well as to the North, both in blood and treasure, but it was worth all it cost.

                    4. I say eff ’em. If we were two separate countries from the get-go, at least the US and the founders wouldn’t have that immoral bloodstain on their hands. Was national unity so important that they would sacrifice their purported value for human liberty? If so, why do so many libertarians consider the Constitution and Founding Fathers sacrosanct?

    2. Re: MNG,

      To hear him tell it the 3/5th Compromise was second only to the Magna Carta in Great Things in History’s March to Liberty.

      Well, that’s because with that compromise, the fools ended up being the slaver states.

      1. They got to count people who could not vote and were enslaved as more than half a person towards representation. They made out like bandits. Historians have shown that it was that edge that gave the Southern states the power to fend off national changes to slavery for decades following the Compromise. Gary Wills wrote an excellent popular book on that very subject.

        1. Re: MNG,

          They got to count people who could not vote and were enslaved as more than half a person towards representation. They made out like bandits.

          Did they? That would explain why the Southern States were so eager to leave – with all that extra representation and all.

          By the way, IDIOT, you forgot that CHILDREN and WOMEN could NOT vote, yet they were ALSO counted for representation by a factor of ONE, not 3/5ths. So who did you say made like bandits, again????

          1. They were not eager to leave until their artifical advantage finally didn’t do it anymore, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have a massive artifical advantage. Like I said, read Wills book. He documents how the composition of many Congress’ and outcome of many Presidential elections would have come out very different without this inflated representation.

            Your point about women is silly seeing as how that applied to Southern and Northern states alike.

            1. Re: MNG,

              They were not eager to leave until their artifical advantage finally didn’t do it anymore, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have a massive artifical advantage.

              They DIDN’T. You again forgot the women and children, first, and second, that the slaves were already IN the US.

              Like I said, read Wills book. He documents how the composition of many Congress’ and outcome of many Presidential elections would have come out very different without this inflated representation.

              I am pretty sure it would. I am pretty sure that if the census would not count women and children, the outcomes would have been quite another thing. That is the kind of MEANINGLESS conclusion a person like YOU (and Wills) arrives at.

              Your point about women is silly seeing as how that applied to Southern and Northern states alike.

              Unfortunately, it was YOU who made the point, MNG, and I indicated the absurdity of it:

              “They got to count people who could not vote[…]”

              My reply to that is “so what? Women and children could not vote either, but they were counted by a factor of 1”

              1. Jesus you are dense today. In slave states and non-slave states women and children got to be counted towards representation but not vote. In slave states they ALSO got to count all slaves in the same manner. Advantage, South. An advantage that mattered in bolstering their political power.

                1. Re: MNG,

                  In slave states and non-slave states women and children got to be counted towards representation but not vote. In slave states they ALSO got to count all slaves in the same manner. Advantage, South.

                  Hey, IGNORANT OF YOUR OWN HISTORY:

                  THE NOTHERN STATES ALSO HAD SLAVES.

                  Point – not you.

                  1. Only some did, and it was pretty peripheral. The representatives of the Northern states thought it was a horrible thing that the South wanted to count slaves at all, why do you think there was a compromise?

                    Again, if you read on the subject the Compromisers themselves thought it was at best a necessary evil, a stain on the nation, not something to be celebrated or a victory for liberty or the slaves.

                    1. Re: MNG,

                      The representatives of the Northern states thought it was a horrible thing that the South wanted to count slaves at all, why do you think there was a compromise?

                      MNG, who cares? The point you have been trying to make is that this was an incredible deal for the Southern States. It WASN’T – the math does not add up! At the VERY beginning, they would have more or less balanced representation, but as population increased and more states were added, they would start losing that “advantage” progressively. They were sold the equivalent of a Best Buy extended warranty.

                      The point is that it was the Southern States who ended up dealing with the Devil, not the other way around.

                    2. It WASN’T – the math does not add up! At the VERY beginning, they would have more or less balanced representation, but as population increased and more states were added, they would start losing that “advantage” progressively.

                      Math is hard.

                      The political advantage remained as it is a relative political advantage. Because the North had a greater population, the South was at a disadvantage, but because of the 3/5ths thing they were at less of a disadvantage than they would have been without that compromise. It is the reason they fought for it…because it improved their standing. Without it, the Northern population advantage would have been greater.

                    3. Didn’t the southern states also get stuck paying more taxes because of counting slaves?

                    4. Yes they did but direct taxation was not that high at the federal level then. But more tarriffs (which as indirect taxes were not raelated to the enumeration) were collected in the south because the south had more and/or busier ports IIANM. Of course, many of the goods the tarriffs were collected on were move to the north and the west so the importers could recoup them there but nonetheless the South was more dependent on tarriffs than the north.

                      The legislative advantage of the 3/5 compromise was enough to keep the Northern Whigs (and the Republicans were Whigs on the tarriff issue) and their protectionism at bay for a while but eventually they list it mostly because the North ended up with an overall population advantage.

                      People forget that much of the South was unliveable in the summer until; the advent of air conditioning. People weren’t exactly rushing to take up residence in a fetid malaria riddled swamp. 🙂

                      High tarriffs were a legitimate grievance of the Southerners but anyone who thinks they were the primary cause of secession are..well…just whistling Dixie.

                      Whether Lincoln acted constitutionally, or wisely, to the secession with military action is another question.

                      I tend to think not but I also have no illusions that there would have been bloodshed in the end as the South tried to expand to the west, settle issues of slaves escaping to the north or the crown jewel of the confederate plan which was to invade Mexico and south america in some kind of southern directed manifest Destiny.

                    5. Re: Isaac Bartram,

                      High tarriffs were a legitimate grievance of the Southerners but anyone who thinks they were the primary cause of secession are..well…just whistling Dixie.

                      Not for secession per se, and nobody has made such a case. And I mean NOBODY (if you’re thinking of DiLorenzo.) Southern states seceded partly because of slavery, partly because northern states were nullifying the Fugitive Slave act, partly because of the expansion of Northern industrial influence in Congress. But not the tariff only.

                      What the tariff did by itself was to prompt the WAR against the southern states, as they refused to collect it and Lincoln wanted the money. MONEY is what started the war, not slavery. Remember that the southern states had seceded peacefully and on Constitutional grounds.

                    6. No Northern states had slaves by 1860.

                      Delaware, Maryland and Missouri were all southern states if one takes the definition of southern as below the Mason-Dixon Line. And that I believe was the standard definition*.

                      I realize that today Maryland is considered a Yankee bastion by southerners but it certainly was not in those days.

                      *Though a rough one, admittedly. parts of Va and MO lie north of the line and parts of OH, IN and IL lie below it.

                    7. Include Kentucky with DE MD and MO.

                    8. Re: Isaac Bartram,

                      No Northern states had slaves by 1860.

                      No – but many did when the Constitution was ratified. That’s what counts as part of the backdrop for the 3/5 compromise.

        2. 60% is still less than 1, even if your goal is 0. Which was all John was arguing.

          Saying that a non-optimal result is better than the least-optimal result is not an defense of the result, just an simple observation.

          1. And 60% is closer to 1 than 0, so which side did better on that compromise?

            1. Not the point and never was the point. You were all over John because slaves weren’t counted as zero, not because 60% is worse than 59.99% -> 0%.

              1. No, no. I was all over John because he thought it was a good move, a move in the right direction. Go back and read the thread. I said it was not something good at all, but a sad commentary on where this nation was at the time.

                1. Believe what you want.

        3. Re: MNG,

          Gary Wills wrote an excellent popular book on that very subject.

          Irrelevant.

        4. They got to count people who could not vote and were enslaved as more than half a person towards representation.

          You should also remember that even after slavery ended the south imposed Jim Crow…which prevented Blacks from voting…so they were able to count the blacks and keep them from voting. The fact that it was progressives who invented Jim crow and imposed it for their political gain only destroys your argument all the more.

    3. The urge to masturbate is strong in this one.

      1. Did I insult your fellow GOP boyfriend? Aww.

        1. You’re one to talk about being John’s boyfriend. Sure, it’s a love-hate thing that you two have, but that’s why they say that opposites attract.

          Come on, everyone here knows it. If you were gay, I’d tell you both to just do each other and work out that sexual tension, but I guess you’re just stuck fighting on the internet.

  25. Don’t want to get gutted?

    Keep yer powder dry.

      1. And never eat spinach with a stranger

  26. Rather than attempt to gouge out each other’s eyes, rip off testicles, and otherwise maim and mutilate their opponents, gentlemen settled their personal affairs using canes, swords, and most commonly, pistols.

    Not cool, frontiersmen! I’d rather be shot.

  27. As a matter of pure positioning, Rand’s no-compromise opening offer is to be applauded.

    Contrast to the Republican leadership’s opening offer on raising the debt ceiling, namely “Of course we’re going to raise the debt ceiling!” And from that start, they are going to wring all kinds of concessions?

  28. While admitting that no current issue rises to the level of moral significance of slavery…

    We beg to differ!

    1. I do as well.

      Hell the slaves probably did not get ass raped as much as I do.

  29. I would be sad they killed my dog and my daughter…but they killed me as well so I can’t feel anything now.

  30. I would have preferred a life with 30 moms and a bible thumping dad with a gun fetish then death from fire.

  31. Who said slavery didn’t have anything to do with the Civil War?

    Well, the Southern leaders said it did — at the time. The Southern newspapers said it did — at the time.

    See the Southern Ultimatums — written by the South, at the time. Southern leaders issued the ultimatums, which were reported in newspapers North and South.

    Lincoln, of course, could not obey the Ultimatums. I will show you why he could not.

    The Southern leaders then attacked — AFTER their ultimatums were not obeyed.

    Oh – you didn’t hear of the Five Southern Ultimatums? No kidding?

    All five Southern Ultimatums were about the SPREAD of slavery. All five. Did I mention, ALL FIVE?

    Southern newspapers shouted headlines about these Ultimatums, the Richmond paper called them “THE TRUE ISSUE”.

    Newspapers in the North wondered why NOT obey these ultimatums? The South had demanded them for decades. And each time the North caved in.

    Now the South was issuing Demands again — calling them “Ultimatums”.

    The Ultimatums specifically demanded that the states and the people had no right to pass their own laws about slavery or civil rights, whatsoever.

    Specifically, the territories (they meant Kansas) must “accept and respect slavery”.

    Kansas, of course, had just kicked Southern thugs butt in the “Bloody Kansas” wars. The people of Kansas had just voted an astonishing 98% to 2 % to keep slavery out FOREVER!

    But the FIRST Ultimatum was that Kansas MUST accept slavery! Against the will of the people, and against the will of their own legislature.

    In fact, the Ultimatums specifically ordered the legislature AND the US Congress to force slavery in there.

    This takes a special kind of insanity to do this.

    Even Hitler would not dream of something like this. This would be like Hitler issuing five ultimatums to England, to invade Poland for the amusement of the Germans. That is how crazy the first Ultimatum was—

    The NORTH, essentially, must force slavery into Kansas, after Kansas had just repelled slavery and the southern thugs that tried to force slavery in there.

    All five Southern Ultimatums were about the expansion of slavery, and how states and people had not right to decide themselves. None. Zero.

    And these were the Ultimatums that Southern newspapers called “THE TRUE ISSUE”

    So before you spew all over about slavery and history –learn something about both. Learn what Southern leaders screamed about, what Southern papers shouted about — the SPREAD of slavery, against the will of the people.

    When you study real history, the Southern leaders were radical lunatics, a lot more wacked out that anyone dares tell our children.

    http://fivedemands.blogspot.com/

    1. Your ideas interest me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.