Skip to comments.Ron Paul: Why didnít the north just buy the southís slaves and free them that way? (Insults Lincoln)
Posted on 03/31/2010 3:04:35 PM PDT by TitansAFC
Ron Paul: Why didnt the north just buy the souths slaves and free them that way?
Getting down to the last two questions here . Most people consider Abe Lincoln to be one of our greatest presidents, if not the greatest president weve ever had. Would you agree with that sentiment and why or why not?
No, I dont think he was one of our greatest presidents. I mean, he was determined to fight a bloody civil war, which many have argued could have been avoided. For 1/100 the cost of the war, plus 600 thousand lives, enough money would have been available to buy up all the slaves and free them. So, I dont see that is a good part of our history.....
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Now using the Paulistinian logic when they attack and smear Palin, I think we now have indisputible evidence that Ron Paul supports slavery!
Ron Paul is a kook.
May all the slaveholders weren’t willing to sell.
I’ll bet he’s got the same opinion about the Revolutionary War of 1776.
The man is a total loon and a coward!
This is they guy who never tired of saying that 911 was our fault.
On that, he’s in complete agreement with 96% of the English professors in the United States.
Buying the slaves was offered as part of many, many plans to end slavery (or let it taper off and die by the year 1900).
As late as 1864, the Union offered to buy all the slaves if the South would end the war. Otherwise, the South would lose its slaves anyway, not be compensated for them, and most of its territory would be ruined by war as well.
But the South wouldn’t take the offer. Emotions had gone beyond reason (and had, even in 1860).
I doubt they were all for sale.
Have you got an opinion about Ron Paul’s opinion about the Civil War?
Paul is a nut.
Any opinions on Ron Paul’s idea that we didn’t need to fight the Civil War?
Makes one wonder yet again about Rand Paul. “But Montag, the sins of the father...” Yeah I know, but it reminds me alot about Scott McClellan’s insane leftist father, and look how Scott turned out: MSNBC’s favorite “Republican”.
Why doesn’t Ron Paul just go away. Half the time he has a semblance of common sense - the other half he sounds like Professor Irwin Corey on an acid trip.
For sure not the Hot ones.
And would that purchase have included the southerner’s written “promise” not to get replacements?
And after that, what’s a promise (written or otherwise) worth?
After all, look at what the commies are doing to our constitution right now?
And perhaps we’re gonna have another war over it.
Irwin Corey is still alive!
The South fought a war to keep slaves and would have turned the money down. With a little research, I’ll bet a Freeper can find where there was an actual offer.
Britain paid to free children kept in slavery.
Yeah. and we should’ve just bought off the Indian tribes, Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, the USSR, Communist China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc, etc, etc.
Sometimes you just have to fight for freedom.
Ron Paul is a nutjob kook, as are his supporters.
That knits the pearl. Paul is a certifiable nutzoid!
Now, we think to put in bills the reimbursement costs from some mandates. At that time, they didn’t. And the mandate that the slaves must be freed didn’t go down well.
The idea that a whole war, with many hundreds of thousands of lives to be lost, was probably not fathomed as being as great as it turned out to be.
I normally think of Ron as a kook, but there is a thread of sanity in this thinking.
They won’t show up it meal time in the Rubber Room.
Of course they weren't willing to sell. Slaves were the labor force for the south. AND even if slaveowners had sold their slaves to the north, what would stop them from buying more? Ron Paul is an idiot who couldn't think his way out of a paper bag.
But RuPaul won the CPAC straw poll - he must be a strong conservative! Right?
Because the Civil War wasn’t really about slavery.....
Every time I think about starting to like Ron Paul he opens his yap and says something really dumb...
Heck, it would probably have started a whole new scheme - Hey, you become my slave, I'll sell you and we can split the money.”
I stand corrected. It appears that the North did offer to buy them.
Okay, there is now no thread of sanity on this quote from him.
Sure I’ll sell you my slaves then go buy me some new younger stronger ones.
Is he really this stupid?
Maybe Ron Paul should suggest that the US buy the world’s supply of cocaine, heroine, and marijuana and disband the drug enforcement agencies?
Call it fiscally conservative and put an end to the “drug war” and the “war on drugs.”
-—”Sometimes you just have to fight for freedom.”-—
Amen, brother, amen!
I just got a real belly laugh at this one, since the Paulistinians have been smearing Palin with incomplete quotes, half-contexted statements, and wild assumptions.
They’re never going to live down the fact that Ron Paul just came out against the Civil War. LOL
Ron Paul can’t think beyond the end of his nose. Slavery would have still been legal. We would have been buying the same men & women 25 times over. It took a war to end slavery.
Buying the slaves is not very practical, but there is a lot that most conservatives need to learn about Lincoln.
See, e.g., The Real Lincoln, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.
From one review of the book:
Description This is the book that made it happen: the nationwide revision concerning the man who they tried to tell us was a great liberator. Dictator and slayer of liberty is more like it. Lincoln was not the godlike figure of myth and legend but an unusually cruel political operator who exploited the moment for personal gain, just as we’ve come to expect of modern politicians.
In this blockbuster, Thomas DiLorenzo calls for a complete rethinking of a central icon of American historiography. He looks at the actions and legacy of Abe Lincoln from an economics point of view to show that Lincoln’s main interest was not in opposing slavery but in advancing mercantilism, inflationism, and government spending: the “American system” of Henry Clay.
Through extensive historical investigation, DiLorenzo shows that the high tariff pushed by Northern industries, at the expense of Southern agriculture, was the main cause of the sectional conflict. Further, Lincoln’s goal in preventing Southern secession was the consolidation of federal power and the collection of revenue, not the elimination of slavery. Introduction by Walter Williams.
Barron’s says: “More than 16,000 books have already been written about Abraham Lincoln. But it took an economist to get the story right. The Real Lincoln, by Loyola College economics prof Thomas J. DiLorenzo, is this year’s top pick in [Gene Epstein’s] sixth annual review of Holiday Gifts that Keep on Giving, When It’s the Thought that Counts.”
They could have passed a law .....
The North thought the war would be over in 3 months, IIRC.
Neither side forsaw the length and bloodiness.
Yes, thank you for saying it.
Ron obviously knows little about the period. I just finished my second reading of Shelby Foote’s 3000+ page opus.
Lincoln made repeated attempts to get the South, or the border states, to free their slaves with compensation.
He couldn’t get traction for it, not even in his own cabinet. It’s highly unlikely northern people would have been willing to tax themselves to compensate slaveholders. For some obscure reason people are always more willing to fund a war than an effort to prevent one. Sort of along the same line there’s never time to do it right, but always enough time to do it over.
BTW, his numbers are wildly off. Official US government estimate in 1879 is that the war cost a little over $6B. 1% of that, per Ron, would be $60M.
There were 4M+ slaves in 1860. I doubt the owners would have been willing to sell at $15 each. Average price, if I remember correctly, was somewhere between $500 and $1000, which would add up to somewhere around 50% of the cost of the war, not <1%.
Seriously, make a quick buck, but then you need someone to tend those fields and keep the house, so then you go again.
What good would that have done? Buy up all the slave and the democrats would have just gone out and taken more people into slavery. It would have been a never ending buy out.
Look at the democrats today! Look at how they see nothing wrong with forcing people to buy a product of the democrats choice. How they all share the elitist attitude toward the American people and how they think our freedoms should be limited.
No! Buying those enslaved would have been a never ending purchase. Because democrats never stop trying to enslave others.
The fact that importing slaves had been illegal for 50 years?
Ron Paul and the Paulettes are playing solitaire with 51 cards.
So the south could get new slaves from Africa to sell to the North at a premium?
It is only the matter of settling on the right price which will solve all human conflicts. Single-track individuals quite good in some narrow field of interest, but have the unfortunate tendency to apply it to every field as a panacea.
“Why didnt the north just buy the souths slaves and free them that way?”
And then what?
“...he was determined to fight a bloody civil war...”
First, I don’t recall that there were that many who thought it would be all that bloody or all that long—on either side.
Second, it was the War Between the States and Lincoln couldn’t have done much of anything without the support of the the non-seceding States and the volunteers from those States who bore the brunt of the war.
Have you stopped molesting barnyard animals yet?
Don’t be assinine.
You know darn well that you are lying by implying that Ron Paul supports slavery. Somehow I don’t think that bothers you, does it?
But he is right. If Lincoln really wanted to free the slaves, which he didn’t, he could have championed buying them and then freeing them.
But he didn’t.
While I don't agree with Ron Paul on most things, he is right about Lincoln. Abe started the war against people who seceded peacefully and did not take arms up against the North until the precipitated the fight at fort Sumpter. Lincoln did not want secession so he pressured the south until they fought back. Hence a war. Lincoln was a blood thirsty tyrant, regardless of how history paints him.
Obama compared himself to Lincoln.
From the Paul interview: "...the Civil War was to prove that we had a very, very strong centralized federal government and that's what it did. It rejected the notion that states were a sovereign nation.
The people who disagree want to turn around and say, "Oh, yes, those guys just wanted to protect slavery." But that's just a cop-out if you look at this whole idea of what happened in our country because Lincoln really believed in the centralized state. He was a Hamiltonian type and objected to everything Jefferson wanted....."
In those ways Obama is Lincolnisn / Hamiltonian.
Not saying we are headed for Civil War, just noting the interesting perspective given the recent events and underlying agendas.