Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul: Why didnít the north just buy the southís slaves and free them that way? (Insults Lincoln)
Hot Air ^ | 3-31-10 | Hot Air.com Staff

Posted on 03/31/2010 3:04:35 PM PDT by TitansAFC

Ron Paul: Why didn’t the north just buy the south’s 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 we’ve ever had. Would you agree with that sentiment and why or why not?

No, I don’t 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 don’t see that is a good part of our history.....

(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 911truther; abelincoln; brokebackrebels; civilwar; davidduke; davisinadress; davisisatranny; daviswasacoward; democrat; dictator; dishonestabe; dixie; dumbestpresident; gaydavis; gayguy; gaylincoln; gaypresident; greatestpresident; libertarians; libertarians4slavery; liebertarians; lincolnapologists; lincolnkickedass; looneytunes; lronpaul; neoconfedinbreds; neounionists; obama; palin; paulestinians; paulistinians; peckerwoods4paul; randpaultruthfile; reblosers; revisionsists; romney; ronpaul; ronpaultruthfile; scalawags; skinheadkeywords; slaveryapollogists; southernwhine; stinkinlincoln; stormfront; tyrant; tyrantlincoln; union4ever; warcriminal; worstpresident; yankeeapologists; yankeeswin; youknowhesnuts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,551-1,572 next last
Ron Paul calls Abe Lincoln a blood-thirsty war-mongerer.

LOL

Now using the Paulistinian logic when they attack and smear Palin, I think we now have indisputible evidence that Ron Paul supports slavery!

1 posted on 03/31/2010 3:04:35 PM PDT by TitansAFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Ron Paul is a kook.


2 posted on 03/31/2010 3:06:23 PM PDT by Mogollon (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

May all the slaveholders weren’t willing to sell.


3 posted on 03/31/2010 3:06:30 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

What’s next?

I’ll bet he’s got the same opinion about the Revolutionary War of 1776.

The man is a total loon and a coward!


4 posted on 03/31/2010 3:06:48 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

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.


5 posted on 03/31/2010 3:07:01 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

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).


6 posted on 03/31/2010 3:07:22 PM PDT by CondorFlight (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

I doubt they were all for sale.


7 posted on 03/31/2010 3:07:31 PM PDT by Rennes Templar (Eschew obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC; rabscuttle385

Hey Rabs,

Have you got an opinion about Ron Paul’s opinion about the Civil War?


8 posted on 03/31/2010 3:07:41 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Paul is a nut.


9 posted on 03/31/2010 3:08:32 PM PDT by svcw (Religion is like giving someone who is dying of thirst mouthwash.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC; Captain Kirk

Hey CK,

Any opinions on Ron Paul’s idea that we didn’t need to fight the Civil War?


10 posted on 03/31/2010 3:08:37 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

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”.


11 posted on 03/31/2010 3:08:48 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

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.


12 posted on 03/31/2010 3:08:48 PM PDT by Apercu ("A man's character is his fate" - Heraclitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rennes Templar

For sure not the Hot ones.


13 posted on 03/31/2010 3:08:53 PM PDT by hobbes1 (Hobbes1TheOmniscient¬ģ "I know everything so you don't have to...." ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

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.

Interesting.


14 posted on 03/31/2010 3:09:38 PM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Apercu

Irwin Corey is still alive!


15 posted on 03/31/2010 3:09:47 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

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.


16 posted on 03/31/2010 3:10:09 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA /Patron - TSRA- IDPA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

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.


17 posted on 03/31/2010 3:10:10 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (JUST VOTE THEM OUT! teapartyexpress.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
And even if they were willing to sell, who says they wouldn't use the proceeds of the sale to import more slaves.

Ron Paul is a nutjob kook, as are his supporters.

18 posted on 03/31/2010 3:10:11 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

That knits the pearl. Paul is a certifiable nutzoid!


19 posted on 03/31/2010 3:10:14 PM PDT by chooseascreennamepat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

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.


20 posted on 03/31/2010 3:10:21 PM PDT by ConservativeMind (Hypocrisy: "Animal rightists" who eat meat & pen up pets while accusing hog farmers of cruelty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

They won’t show up it meal time in the Rubber Room.


21 posted on 03/31/2010 3:10:35 PM PDT by Clyde5445 (Gov. Sarah Palin: :"You have to sacrifice to win. That's my philosophy in 6 words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Maybe all the slaveholders weren’t willing to sell.

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.

22 posted on 03/31/2010 3:10:45 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight

But RuPaul won the CPAC straw poll - he must be a strong conservative! Right?


23 posted on 03/31/2010 3:11:14 PM PDT by newfreep (Palin/DeMint 2012 - Bolton: Secy of State)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Because the Civil War wasn’t really about slavery.....


24 posted on 03/31/2010 3:11:33 PM PDT by Osage Orange (A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. - Sigmund Freud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clyde5445
They won’t show up it meal time in the Rubber Room.

Either that, or coordinating the next false attack on Sarah.
25 posted on 03/31/2010 3:11:50 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Every time I think about starting to like Ron Paul he opens his yap and says something really dumb...


26 posted on 03/31/2010 3:11:50 PM PDT by Domandred (Fdisk, format, and reinstall the entire .gov system.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
The slave owners would have loved that - since it wouldn't have ended slavery - and been a real “cash crop” - we'd still be “buying” slaves.

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.”

27 posted on 03/31/2010 3:12:01 PM PDT by maine-iac7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight

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.


28 posted on 03/31/2010 3:12:31 PM PDT by ConservativeMind (Hypocrisy: "Animal rightists" who eat meat & pen up pets while accusing hog farmers of cruelty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

29 posted on 03/31/2010 3:12:34 PM PDT by reagan_fanatic (Entitlements will do to America what drugs eventually do to addicts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Sure I’ll sell you my slaves then go buy me some new younger stronger ones.

Is he really this stupid?


30 posted on 03/31/2010 3:13:51 PM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

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.”


31 posted on 03/31/2010 3:14:18 PM PDT by onyx (Facts don't matter. Proof not required. Anything goes! Racial slurs, death threats.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

-—”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


32 posted on 03/31/2010 3:14:27 PM PDT by TitansAFC (The Left does not devote so much effort into attacking Sarah Palin because she's a weak candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

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.


33 posted on 03/31/2010 3:14:28 PM PDT by HD1200
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

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.”

ISBN 0761526463


34 posted on 03/31/2010 3:14:36 PM PDT by Buchal ("Two wings of the same bird of prey . . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
May all the slaveholders weren’t willing to sell.

They could have passed a law .....

35 posted on 03/31/2010 3:15:00 PM PDT by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

The North thought the war would be over in 3 months, IIRC.
Neither side forsaw the length and bloodiness.


36 posted on 03/31/2010 3:15:10 PM PDT by dynachrome (Barack Hussein Obama yunikku khinaaziir!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
Well, part of the South being a sovereign nation was so that they could continue to own slaves. We didn't need to amend the Constitution, the Supreme Court could have ruled the practice of owning American-born slaves un-Constitutional. If this was done, the States would have still illegally seceded and there probably still would have been an attack on a Federal Fort.

I think the War was all about slavery. The population of slaves was higher then freemen in many States, the agrarian economy was clearly built on slave labor in many communities.
37 posted on 03/31/2010 3:15:28 PM PDT by ATX 1985 (Time is Breath, Breath is Light, Light is Life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Yes, thank you for saying it.


38 posted on 03/31/2010 3:15:52 PM PDT by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

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%.


39 posted on 03/31/2010 3:16:31 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
Couldn't pay them off alll at once..still under contract til a certain age Ron.
40 posted on 03/31/2010 3:16:46 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
Because they would've bought more?

Seriously, make a quick buck, but then you need someone to tend those fields and keep the house, so then you go again.

41 posted on 03/31/2010 3:17:31 PM PDT by Tanniker Smith (Is the difference between "anticipating" and "just waiting" the same as between "when" and "if"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
"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."

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.

42 posted on 03/31/2010 3:17:43 PM PDT by GloriaJane (Pro-Choice = Pro-Death........ Pro-Life = Pro-LIFE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hsalaw
AND even if slaveowners had sold their slaves to the north, what would stop them from buying more?

The fact that importing slaves had been illegal for 50 years?

43 posted on 03/31/2010 3:17:44 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Ron Paul and the Paulettes are playing solitaire with 51 cards.


44 posted on 03/31/2010 3:17:51 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember (The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. - H. L. Menken.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

So the south could get new slaves from Africa to sell to the North at a premium?


45 posted on 03/31/2010 3:19:01 PM PDT by mainsail that
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
Libertarians’ motto — business deals can solve all problems.

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.

46 posted on 03/31/2010 3:19:27 PM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

“Why didn’t the north just buy the south’s 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.
s


47 posted on 03/31/2010 3:19:28 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

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.


48 posted on 03/31/2010 3:19:41 PM PDT by Eagle Eye (The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
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 we’ve ever had. Would you agree with that sentiment and why or why not?

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.

49 posted on 03/31/2010 3:19:54 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
Might be missing an important aspect ... besides the 'Civil War' arguments:

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.

50 posted on 03/31/2010 3:21:11 PM PDT by mpreston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,551-1,572 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson