can we get a Mises vs Cato vs Charges of Racism master thread that is OUT OF THE LC THREAD??? kplxthnx

Can you give a citation for that?

Not my battle, but I'll meddle anyways

In the "Cornerstone Speech" the Vice President of the Confederates said

How likely is it that they will go from that idea to "wow, 200 bucks per slave? Awesome, now you are free my brother" ?

Since it's your counterfactual I would ask you to find a cite for it, but I'll make it easier.....how about you spend some time trying to find just one major Southern political figure from that era who had a position on slavery other than that it must be maintained in perpetuity not just in the States proper but in as many of the new Territories as possible. Good luck and report back what you find.

Well, for one thing, Lincoln proposed this. So it's pretty LOL to use it as an anti-Lincoln talking point.

You missed the point. Lincoln himself proposed the buyout option for ending slavery. Lincoln was indeed a racist, though, and I don't respect him much, partly for that reason.

Lincoln also proposed to put slavery in the Constitution and to ship them off to Africa.

When did he propose the buyout option?

Wait, you have respect for him otherwise? He killed Indians, he locked up the press, he was a total mercantilist. What could he have possibly done worse?

Agreeing to let the country be subdivided into multiple countries would have been worse. He got that right.

Slavery was already in the Constitution. That might just be the academic consensus, though, LOL.

Notice, again, where Lincoln's attempts to compromise with the South are removed from context and used to demonize him. This trick does not work on normal people. They are not persuaded. You happen to recall Jefferson Davis' proposals vis a vis slavery, Nielso?


[x] "Lincoln: History's Greatest Monster"

How many posts do you think it would take for me to get Nielso or Borodog to defend indentured servitude for children?

Neither the North or South government was anti-slavery. And I cannot find a perfect example of what you are talking about. But a pretty close example would be Lysander Spooner who was an abolitionist from Massachusetts who argued that the right of the states to secede derives from the natural right of slaves to be free. Spooner condemned the invasion of the south and offered free legal defense to fugitive slaves as well as proposals of Compensated emancipation to end slavery peacefully.

Also, these places around the world used compensated emancipation to end slavery peacefully...
# Argentina
# Bolivia
# British Empire
# Chile
# Colombia
# Danish colonies
# Ecuador
# French colonial empire
# Mexico and Central America
# Peru
# Spanish Empire
# Sweden
# Uruguay
# Venezuela

So now you need to tell me why it just wouldn't work with southern plantation owners because I am convinced that it would have.

D. L. Hughley seems to agree with Ron Paul's points on the Civil War in his interview of Bill Maher.

I agree that regulation would be bad. But isn't this just an extension on being in the grey area of being unregulated and semi-legal?

Check out post 1316.

He lived in the 19th century. You can't really judge historical figures with 21st century values imo.

In order for Southern plantation owners to agree to the plan there must first have been some kind of realization in the South that slavery as an institution needed to be ended. Save for the border states nowhere in the historical record is there even a hint of abolitionist sentiment. Indeed, voicing such views in Mississippi or Alabama was a good way to get oneself dead. Anyone who has even a passing knowledge of how the political and economic power structures were organized knows that there was zero chance of the South voluntarily giving up the institution as by 1850 the defense of slavery was the raison d'etre of both. The secession crisis was sparked by southerners mainly to avoid a situation where they thought they might, someday potentially decades in the future, be put in a position where slavery would become much harder to defend politically. It is the very act of secession (and the politics that led up to it) which is the best argument against the potential success of the Just Buy the Slaves plan that Ron Paul thinks would have avoided the Civil War. I would imagine the fact that he makes this argument today says more about who he thinks his audience is than anything else.

While typing this up it occurs to me that the advocates for the Just Buy the Slaves Plan are basically making the argument that the slaves were indeed property and that their owners deserved some compensation for not continuing their enslavement. That's the Libertarian side of the argument. Go figure.