Patrick Byrne

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

Stanford Philosophy instilled in me a taste for analytic philosophy. That means not making or reacting to claims in sweeping way, but point-by-point exposition and analysis. I shall start by getting out of the way the easy stuff where we may all agree. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

I have offered to give a talk entitled: "I took a BLM Ideological Purity Test & Scored 41%: Let's Discuss". It has not happened yet. So I respectfully invite @DrIbram, @HenryLouisGates, @cthagod, @CornelWest, and @Nate_1603 to a point-by-point dialogue. PLEASE RETWEET! — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

RT @GunfighterSpock: @Colorofsky2 @PeterWrangel Congratulations, you have reached a top school shooter bodycount! https://t.co/IoFVDSWLdO — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

@Johnny_Rebb2 @ITShortKing Because they are fascists. And fascists dream of things like that. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

@Johnny_Rebb2 @ITShortKing It is called “fascism” Garrett — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

This was the true origin of other minimum wage laws that began being passed that decade. The economic analysis of such laws is that they reduce the cost of discrimination to $0. When the cost of something falls, society consumes it more if it. This includes discrimination. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

See this fine 1994 National Black Law Journal article: "The Davis-Bacon Act: Vestige of Jim Crow" https://t.co/0Ovz9GspJ1 — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

Firms hiring Black construction workers were underbidding firms with unionized White workers (whose unions would not admit Blacks). The Davis Bacon Act (1931) was passed to shield Whites from Black labor market competition. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

Then came Progressivism, a central aim of which was making government big enough to protect Whites from Black competition. That was a pillar of unionization; The Confederate Statues went up under Progressives; KKK peaked under Progressivism's patron saint Woodrow Wilson. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

In 1878, resurgent Democratic power rolled back Reconstruction. Civil War gains (Amendments 13, 14, & 15) became legal formalities replaced by near-substitutes for slavery (e.g., sharecropping). had become integrated, were re-segregated (by Wilson). — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

TRIGGER WARNING! Typical Democrat advertisements: https://t.co/LhKBVilr2x — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

In what I wrote so far, everything evil was Democrat, and anything good was Republican. Democrats were the party of slavery + "Injun'-killing". Democrat SCOTUS : Dred Scott + Plessy. Republicans: abolitionism, Lincoln, & Reconstruction (all Blacks in Congress were Republicans). https://t.co/ojLMmQb7dA — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

Has fair has been my account been so far? — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

But Blacks were also being stymied by new laws such as, "You can't be Black and be a butcher." In 1873 SCOTUS allowed this (Slaughterhouse Cases"). In 1893 (Plessy v. Fergusson) SCOTUS endorsed "separate but equal." Thus arose the Jim Crow South. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

Reconstruction brought real improvement... Under the protection of Union occupiers, Blacks had real voting rights: 21 Blacks were elected to the House. 2 Blacks (one a former slave) were elected to Senate. The military & civil service became integrated (-ish). — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

Lincoln is criticized for not being as abolitionist as Douglass would have liked. He was a politician, he said one thing one place & other things other places. But on balance, we fought a Civil War over slavery (as @DrIbram acknowledges). Lincoln led that war. That counts. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

So (these quibbles aside), I generally concur with BLM re: 1619-1860: Yes slavery was 1 of our 2 greatest crimes; Yes it was hell on earth; No the Revolution was not fought over it; Yes it became a significant (5%) part of GDP; Yes it spurred our economy but not uniquely so. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

Second, while slavery-cotton spurred development of transport & markets, it was not UNIQUE in that regard. For example, Irish & Chinese labor built the railroads. Do they get credit for everything that rolled on a track? No. Many things contributed to our development. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

Two exceptions: First: it seems improbable to me that our Revolution was fought to preserve an institution that was .5% of GDP. The 1619 Project originally claimed otherwise, but has retreated from that claim. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

Cotton also contributed to broader US progress. It spurred development of railroads & shipping able to transport cotton to the mills of England. It spurred growth of Wall Street commodity markets. To this point, my claims and BLM-1619 doctrine line up. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

By the 1850s slavery grew steadily to generating 5% of US GDP (with 4 million enslaved). In comparison, at its zenith in the early 1970s, our automobile industry reached 5%. Thus it IS fair to say that slavery was a substantial part of US GDP by the time of our Civil War. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

At the time of the American Revolution, slavery was responsible for .5% of GDP. But with the invention of the "Cotton 'gin" (1793), slavery became much more profitable, and hence began robust growth. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

In an act of remarkable scholarship, WEB Du Bois first calculated that 320,000 number. A century later, Harvard's Chair of African American Studies Dr. Henry Louis Gates ( @HenryLouisGates) redid the work of Du Bois, and showed how stunningly accurate Du Bois had been. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

Of the 10.5 million sent to the New World: 6 million came to what became Brazil; 320,000 - 350,000 came to what became the USA. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

Our involvement with slavery was also reprehensible. Europeans enslaved 10.5 million Africans in the ATLANTIC slave trade. NB In comparison: Africans enslaved 1.5 million Europeans ("Barbary Pirates"); Muslims enslaved 50 million Africans after Muhammad endorsed the project. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

The genocide of Native Americans was reprehensible. One might note that the BULK of those killed died from contact with germs brought by Europeans (from their contact with livestock). Just as the Han did in Asia. Just as the Bantu did in Africa. (cf. "Guns, Germs, & Steel") — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

First, the TRULY easy stuff: the two great stains on the honor of our nation come from how we treated Native Americans (we likely reduced their population 95%), and how we treated Blacks (both slavery and thereafter). — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

Stanford Philosophy instilled in me a taste for analytic philosophy. That means not making or reacting to claims in sweeping way, but point-by-point exposition and analysis. I shall start by getting out of the way the easy stuff where we may all agree. — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

Elsewhere I have offered to give BLM a talk entitled: "I took a BLM Ideological Purity Test & Scored 41%: Let's Discuss". It has not happened yet. So I respectfully invite @DrIbram, @HenryLouisGates , and @Nate_1603 to a point-by-point dialogue, here. PLEASE RETWEET! — PolitiTweet.org

Patrick Byrne @PatrickByrne

@Junky4Liberty @SpringerMaine1 @Turner_1603 That is what I'M saying. Sometimes it seems the only thing Democrats have in their toolbox is to accuse, "Racist!" — PolitiTweet.org