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 ...
A natural right. Not a legal one. Paine knows the difference. He's not arguing that the colonies secede from England or that England has no legal right to resist the loss. The next two quotes say the same thing. Pickering, interestingly, blames Thomas Jefferson for destroying federalism.
I just love it when Williams carries on conversations with himself.
Hate to tell you this, your a statist.
Norway's independence was the result of a long negotiation with Sweden. Panama's was the result of a coup stage managed by Theodore Roosevelt and backed by US gunboats, West Virginia's partition we've covered many times, but suffice to say that Virginia didn't simply say that they were free to separate. After the war, the Virginia legislature repealed West Virginia's secession and then sued in federal court to have it restored. They lost in the Supreme Court.
Bears repeating!
I just love it when Williams carries on conversations with himself.
I'm sure that NS has a personal knowledge of what it's like to carry on conversations with one's self.......
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a fascist. We get it.
Mr. Paul is simply demonstrating his abject ignorance.
While slavery was certainly an issue, the major issue for secession was protectionism. The South sold its cotton overseas in the UK and France and purchased manufactured good from those countries in turn. These were cheaper (even with shipping) than goods produced in the North’s industries. Lincoln supported high tariffs on the incoming merchandise. In effect the North wanted the South as a captive market for its wares.
The South, which already paid most of the Federal government’s expenses, naturally objected, and unpleasantness ensued.
Can't say as I do. What's it like?
There would be no slaves to buy. Importation of slaves was against law in the US and had been since the early 1800s.
Manufactured goods like what exactly?
That didn't stop the South from continuing to import them even when illegal. Had they become independent then the gloves would be off.
That there is comic gold. 'Splain to me again, Unca Cowboy, how all 5 million CA conservative voters are "yankees".
That makes absolutely no sense at all. None.
I'd break it down for you, if I thought you could understand the concept. BTW, another cultural difference you enjoy these days is blood pressure medication. You should take some.
Actually, that's the yankee way and it's obvious that you and your ilk get.
"The bottom line question for all of us is should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another?"---Walter Williams
The South parts company in 1861 and the yankee president, disHonest Abe, launches an illegal war of aggression, slaughters close to a million people and commences an military occupation lasting 150 years.
If the Red States, mostly Southern, decide to part ways with the current yankee regime, what would be the likely outcome? Lincoln, part deux, would without a doubt launch another illegal invasion, and, without a doubt, his yankee minions, such as bubba, ns and the rest, would suit up and march south again. After all, that would be the yankee/fascist way.
Only this time the South has a much better industrial base in which to repel the godless heathens from the north.
You name it: clothing, farm equipment and even essential food products like salt and meats.
Because the Industrial Revolution started there, England esp. had a big advantage when it came to iron goods.
Its not a great source (DiLorenzo - an anti-Lincoln fanatic) but it gives you a idea of what the South saw happening:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo78.html
I’m also sorry that its posted on the Lew Rockwell site.
Not bloody likely. The Royal Navy suppressed the slave trade ruthlessly. They HANGED the captains of slavers. Not that this was a bad thing...
A more likely course for the South was semi-emancipation and second-class citizenship for ex-slaves. Dunno if that would be a good thing but I think it would have been better than the Civil War.
That's elementary, lex: when you side with the yankees, you are a yankee. Does the mental midget get it now?
I'd break it down for you, if I thought you could understand the concept.
I seriously doubt that you have a firm enough grasp on any concept to be able to 'break it down' for anybody.
BTW, another cultural difference you enjoy these days is blood pressure medication.
That's racist!!
You should take some.
I'm fine. I live in a state that is actually fighting socialism/statism/communism. You're the one living behind the iron curtain and if that doesn't give you high blood pressure then that tells us a lot about YOU!
You want us to believe that the South accounted for the overwhelming majority of the $50+ million in tariff revenue. That would mean that they consumed virtually all of the goods the U.S. imported and I, for one, would like to know what that was. Clothing, farm equipment, meat and salt don't seem like near enough. Especially since farm equipment was not on any tariff list I'm aware of and the South had a considerable domestic salt production industry of their own.
Because the Industrial Revolution started there, England esp. had a big advantage when it came to iron goods.
Iron goods like what? Stoves? Railroad rails? Steam engines? How many of the first did the South really need and wouldn't the later two be too heavy to ship across the ocean?
Its not a great source (DiLorenzo - an anti-Lincoln fanatic) but it gives you a idea of what the South saw happening...
No, that gives us Tommy's opinion of what was happening.
Have any examples?
People in the South were trying to import slaves up to and even after the beginning of the rebellion. There is no reason to believe that might have changed.
A more likely course for the South was semi-emancipation and second-class citizenship for ex-slaves. Dunno if that would be a good thing but I think it would have been better than the Civil War.
Even more likely was continuation of slavery and no citizenship for the free blacks. After all, Roger Taney had ruled blacks were not and could never be citizens, and that they had no rights a white man was bound to respect. Why would anyone in the South want to change that?
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.