[Bren]

Originally Posted by G19G20

zzzzzzzz

I think Ron Paul has more delegates than Mitt Romney does.

How do Ron Paul's 80 delegates outnumber Mitt Romney's 847?

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

[fortyofforty]

Originally Posted by lancesorbenson

Much easier to just repeat the slavery mantra from grade school than to consider what essentially amounted to economic warfare carried out by the north against the South for 40 years leading up to 1860. Those angelic Yankees sure didn't mind exploiting the South and its evil raw products to feed their industry and turn a profit. When the South lawfully left the Union the Yankees saw that pipeline to cheap raw goods threatened well, that was that. Was slavery a part of it? No question. But to suggest that's the only real reason for the War of Northern Aggression is simplistic but not surprising considering the source.

Much easier on your conscience to pretend that the root cause of the war was not the Southern fight to keep slaves. Those noble slackjawed yokels were all fighting for the right to sell cotton to England, right? Sleep better believing that.

[fortyofforty]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

You should buy this book.

Amazon.com: Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford History of the United States) (9780195168952): James M. McPherson: Books

Read it, thanks. Try this book:

Amazon.com: The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 (9780061319297): David M. Potter: Books

Amazon.com: The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 (9780061319297): David M. Potter: Books

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by G19G20

zzzzzzzz

I think Ron Paul has more delegates than Mitt Romney does.

Mind if I ask for a link that shows that to be true?

Thanks.

[fortyofforty]

And, if any of you Paulistas, now having to defend slavery and the Southern cause in the Civil War, still cling to the sixth grade notion taught in the South that slavery was but a minor cause of the conflict, I direct you to the April 29, 1861 message of Jefferson Davis. In it you will see that slavery was clearly, as any rational person already knows, the root cause of the Civil War. Tilt at windmills all you like, Paulistas. Dance around the issue. Fabricate strawmen, then tear them down. Ignore the question. And still fail to explain what peaceful means Ron Paul would have used to end slavery in 1860 had he been President.

[QNman]

Originally Posted by G19G20

zzzzzzzz

I think Ron Paul has more delegates than Mitt Romney does.

Then that should be easy to cite... Right? Because RP fans would have made some hay about that somewhere... Right?

[G-19]

Originally Posted by G19G20

zzzzzzzz

I think Ron Paul has more delegates than Mitt Romney does.

What? I can find no info to support this. Please provide a link. Everything shows Romney having about 10X the delegates.

[Cavalry Doc]

[Bren]

Originally Posted by fortyofforty

And, if any of you Paulistas, now having to defend slavery and the Southern cause in the Civil War, still cling to the sixth grade notion taught in the South that slavery was but a minor cause of the conflict, I direct you to the April 29, 1861 message of Jefferson Davis. In it you will see that slavery was clearly, as any rational person already knows, the root cause of the Civil War. Tilt at windmills all you like, Paulistas. Dance around the issue. Fabricate strawmen, then tear them down. Ignore the question. And still fail to explain what peaceful means Ron Paul would have used to end slavery in 1860 had he been President.

This should probably be a separate thread. And you have missed several points, like the war resulting from secession, Abe Lincoln's comments on preserving the union vs. ending slavery, the limits placed in teh emancipation proclamation. The continued legal slavery in northern and neutral states, during and even after the war, etc.

[lancesorbenson]

Originally Posted by fortyofforty

And, if any of you Paulistas, now having to defend slavery and the Southern cause in the Civil War, still cling to the sixth grade notion taught in the South that slavery was but a minor cause of the conflict, I direct you to the April 29, 1861 message of Jefferson Davis. In it you will see that slavery was clearly, as any rational person already knows, the root cause of the Civil War. Tilt at windmills all you like, Paulistas. Dance around the issue. Fabricate strawmen, then tear them down. Ignore the question. And still fail to explain what peaceful means Ron Paul would have used to end slavery in 1860 had he been President.

You're right. The U.S. could never have ended slavery without the deadliest war in our history. Other countries did it without war, sure, but the U.S. never could have done that.

You can ignore the varied reasons for the war. It's much easier for you. We to tell all those historians to quit researching and writing. Fortyofforty on Glocktalk has all the answers to the reasons for the War of Northern Aggression. In the meantime you are welcome to avoid the unenlightened South and all us slack jawed yokels and stay in whatever progressive paradise you call home.

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Mind if I ask for a link that shows that to be true?

Thanks.

No link to share. It's a hunch based on everything I'm seeing either in person or through reports from other Paulites. Take that for what it's worth (which may be nothing) but following the convention results closely leads me to this conclusion. Your best "source" is all the articles on convention outcomes to date.

Note the use of "I think", which indicates a personal understanding more than anything expressly provable.

[ChuteTheMall]

Originally Posted by G19G20

zzzzzzzz

I think Ron Paul has more delegates than Mitt Romney does.

I don't think secret imaginary invisible delegates count.

[G19G20]

Yep, imaginary invisible delegates like the Maine state convention that we just owned today.

Paul wins majority of Maine delegates:
http://news.yahoo.com/paul-wins-majo...174422402.html

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by G19G20

No link to share. It's a hunch based on everything I'm seeing either in person or through reports from other Paulites. Take that for what it's worth (which may be nothing) but following the convention results closely leads me to this conclusion. Your best "source" is all the articles on convention outcomes to date.

Note the use of "I think", which indicates a personal understanding more than anything expressly provable.

I'll take it for what it is worth, which isn't a lot. About a quarter of a mouse fart in a heavy wind actually. That's hard to attach a value to, as is your unsupported claim.

Oh well, we should probably know how it all turns out in less than a year.

[fortyofforty]

Originally Posted by lancesorbenson

You're right. The U.S. could never have ended slavery without the deadliest war in our history. Other countries did it without war, sure, but the U.S. never could have done that.

You can ignore the varied reasons for the war. It's much easier for you. We to tell all those historians to quit researching and writing. Fortyofforty on Glocktalk has all the answers to the reasons for the War of Northern Aggression. In the meantime you are welcome to avoid the unenlightened South and all us slack jawed yokels and stay in whatever progressive paradise you call home.

You can ignore the root cause of the war, and blame those evil Romneyesque Yankees. A country could, if no parts of it were allowed to secede, pass legislation banning slavery without war. Or, as actually happened, a sovereign could simply outlaw slavery in his territories. But, when the Southern states seceded, those options were off the table. In fact, they seceded to prevent legislation outlawing slavery from ever happening.

Nice try, though. Back to the books for you, it appears. You can keep your can of history-strength whitewash to salve your conscience, though. Your enlightened ancestors certainly would never have fought to keep men in bondage.

Still no idea what Paul would have done in 1860, have you?

[fortyofforty]

Originally Posted by Bren

This should probably be a separate thread. And you have missed several points, like the war resulting from secession, Abe Lincoln's comments on preserving the union vs. ending slavery, the limits placed in teh emancipation proclamation. The continued legal slavery in northern and neutral states, during and even after the war, etc.

We all know the peripheral causes of the war. In fact, Karl Marx would have been proud of how you've absorbed his economic interpretation of historical events. However, Southerners often gloss over the root cause of the war. It is so obvious it slaps them in the face, but all they can do is belittle its importance to Southerners in 1860. Don't argue with me. Take it up with Ole Jeff Davis. He knew the real reason for secession. Do you Paulistas? Does Ron Paul himself?

Still waiting to hear what Paul's answer to ending slavery in the South would have been in 1860, since Lincoln's solution was apparently so stupid.

[lancesorbenson]

Originally Posted by fortyofforty

We all know the peripheral causes of the war. In fact, Karl Marx would have been proud of how you've absorbed his economic interpretation of historical events. However, Southerners often gloss over the root cause of the war. It is so obvious it slaps them in the face, but all they can do is belittle its importance to Southerners in 1860. Don't argue with me. Take it up with Ole Jeff Davis. He knew the real reason for secession. Do you Paulistas? Does Ron Paul himself?

Still waiting to hear what Paul's answer to ending slavery in the South would have been in 1860, since Lincoln's solution was apparently so stupid.

Lincoln's "solution" brought us the nation's bloodiest war, income tax, martial law, suspension of habeas corpus, etc. He didn't give a whit about freeing the slaves and said that flat out. Lincoln pledged to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act early in the war and even the sacred Emancipation Proclamation offered to continue slavery. Robert E. Lee wasn't a particular fan of slavery and yet he chose to fight for the Confederacy. I guess he was just confused and needed fortyofforty from Glocktalk to straighten him out.

As far as freeing slaves without the bloodiest war in our history, it likely could have been done considering other nations did it. Surely you don't think our only peer in slave-freeing history is Haiti.

[fortyofforty]

Originally Posted by lancesorbenson

As far as freeing slaves without the bloodiest war in our history, it likely could have been done considering other nations did it. Surely you don't think our only peer in slave-freeing history is Haiti.

How, genius? Don't give me the Ron Paul dodge. How? Specifically. Since attacking Abraham Lincoln is now one of Paul's campaign strategies, what would he have done differently?

[lancesorbenson]

Originally Posted by fortyofforty

How, genius? Don't give me the Ron Paul dodge. How? Specifically. Since attacking Abraham Lincoln is now one of Paul's campaign strategies, what would he have done differently?

Why don't you how look into how a dozen or so other Western countries did it and then tell me it wouldn't have been worth at least trying something else before launching the bloodiest war in US history? Speaking of dodging, I notice you ignore Lincoln disinterest in freeing slaves up to and through the Emancipation Proclamation. But that can't be! He just wanted to free the slaves because he loved them so much.

[fortyofforty]

Originally Posted by lancesorbenson

Why don't you how look into how a dozen or so other Western countries did it and then tell me it wouldn't have been worth at least trying something else before launching the bloodiest war in US history? Speaking of dodging, I notice you ignore Lincoln disinterest in freeing slaves up to and through the Emancipation Proclamation. But that can't be! He just wanted to free the slaves because he loved them so much.

Why don't you answer my question? Which way would Ron Paul have ended slavery had he been elected in 1860? Simple answer will suffice. I'll be waiting. Are you so ignorant you don't even know about the other ways to end slavery that were being tried, or do you pretend that they weren't tried in order to justify Ron Paul's idiocy?

By the way, do you think Lincoln was pro-slavery like your heroes?

[ChuteTheMall]

Originally Posted by fortyofforty

Which way would Ron Paul have ended slavery had he been elected in 1860? Simple answer will suffice. I'll be waiting.

Letters of marque and reprisal?

Earmarks?

[fortyofforty]

QNman, I did not hijack a thread. I merely pointed out another reason Ron Paul is unelectable and some predictably took offense. Thanks for starting the other thread, though, but unless you somehow tie it to Ron Paul I fear it won't get much real debate here on GT. By the way, almost every one of my posts in the thread referred back to Ron Paul, the original post topic, if you want to check.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by fortyofforty

You can ignore the root cause of the war, and blame those evil Romneyesque Yankees. A country could, if no parts of it were allowed to secede, pass legislation banning slavery without war. Or, as actually happened, a sovereign could simply outlaw slavery in his territories. But, when the Southern states seceded, those options were off the table. In fact, they seceded to prevent legislation outlawing slavery from ever happening.

Nice try, though. Back to the books for you, it appears. You can keep your can of history-strength whitewash to salve your conscience, though. Your enlightened ancestors certainly would never have fought to keep men in bondage.

Still no idea what Paul would have done in 1860, have you?

Wasn't he writing some sort of a newsletter in 1860? Just go back to the archives and read them.










[/obscure humor mode]

[QNman]

Originally Posted by fortyofforty

QNman, I did not hijack a thread. I merely pointed out another reason Ron Paul is unelectable and some predictably took offense. Thanks for starting the other thread, though, but unless you somehow tie it to Ron Paul I fear it won't get much real debate here on GT. By the way, almost every one of my posts in the thread referred back to Ron Paul, the original post topic, if you want to check.

Fair enough. My apologies for including you. And for what it's worth, I think your position on the Civil War is both correct and well documented here.

[Rob1109]

Somehow, through some goofy manipulation, RP supporters took over the Nevada State Republican committee. They could never do this through an honest vote, so there had to be some procedural scam.

Anyone who believes RP can be elected President should be put into some mental care facility, before they hurt themselves or others. RP is a physician so he must have some mental abilities. So I'm at a loss as to how someone like this can be so goofy!

I am of the William F. Buckley philosophy....I'll vote for the most conservative candidate WHO CAN BE ELECTED!

It scares me that there are people out there who think RP is viable.

I haven't read the other posts, only speaking for myself. And I don't intend to read the other posts, assuming many are from RP supporters. I don't have anything to say to or hear from this mentality.

Best.