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

To: mnehrling

His statement was that many countries had slaves and ended the practice WITHOUT a civil war. Usually by banning it and buying existing slaves and freeing them.


57 posted on 01/01/2008 1:56:10 PM PST by Duchess47 ("One day I will leave this world and dream myself to Reality" Crazy Horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: Duchess47
No that was only a small part of his quote, the full quote is:

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the – that iron, iron fist.

MR. RUSSERT: We’d still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.



His premise is completely wrong because it was already attempted in Virginia. The state of Virginia in 1832 rejected compensated emancipation for as the slaveholders claimed, they were property, the government had no place in buying them, the owners had to consent in the "taking," AND the government could never afford it because the slaveholder had a right to the increase (in esse) of the unborn slave! So, the most important state in the Union at that time debated what Paul wanted to happen, and they rejected it. The federal government buying the slave would represent a violation of federalism. Such a scheme would be too expensive. Buying slaves, violated property rights. Alexander Stephens said that the South would never consent to a life without slavery, and their objection was to the mere opinions of Lincoln which were opposed to slavery--in other words, the war was over the president's beliefs slavery was wrong. More Stephens: slavery was the cornerstone of the Confederacy.



From a moral perspective, Paul was also wrong because it would have justified continued trafficking in slavery. The fact is, we didn't ban slavery in the way England did (for example) and we split over it and it required a greater action for the greater good.

60 posted on 01/01/2008 2:02:02 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

To: Duchess47
many

he said "every other," and he specifically blamed the Republican party and Abraham Lincoln, even though South Carolina had seceded 12/20/60, and several others had follwed before Lincoln was inaugurated 3/4 /61

62 posted on 01/01/2008 2:03:28 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

To: Duchess47

Brazil ended Slavery in 1888!

Here’s more trivia....
The British supported and aided the South during the Civil War because they needed the cotton for their texitle mills.

Civil War was going to happen no matter what because fighting was breaking out in Missouri and Kanas long before the Civil War started.

Remember the Free State, Slave State and John Brown of the 1850’s?


150 posted on 01/01/2008 4:03:40 PM PST by Milligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

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