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 ...
Slavery was not the original issue though. I don’t want to say slavery was secondary, but states rights, trade restrictions were what the original score was.
The Constitution already forbade import of slaves.
So you think that's funny? Nothing funny about an emporer invading a sovereign country with generals who wer basicall terrorists:
"My aim was, to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their innermost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom."
-- Gen. William T. Sherman aka "The Torch"
I guess Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM) had nothing on "The Torch"
If I own a slave then I have a life time commitment to their care. If I rent a slave (employ), my cost risks are variable.
wer basicall = were basically
Right. People were as close-minded then as they are today.
Buchal....yes, Lincoln was not as “great” as people made him out to be. He was the first truly American “big government” politician.
Even more telling is that Communists adore Lincoln, for years many “Lincoln/Lenin” rallies were held in many socialist and communist countries.
And, of course, Lincoln’s goal was to preserve the union....not to free slaves. His famous quote “If I can preserve the Union without ending slavery...I would do so...”
Although I do not think Paul is correct that the North should have bought the South’s slaves.....many of the Prohibitionists were racists themselves....they wanted mainly to keep blacks out of the new territories....although his comments sure do bring out the Bat-Sewage Nuttiness of the few Liberal RINOs who totally hate Ron Paul.....
The whole tariff/trade issue helped that is for sure.
Looks like this is going to be a tyrant lincoln veneration thread.
Ron Paul’s libertarian politics aside, even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then. The illustrious lincoln was a dictator and tyrant who attempted to keep a free people in a union they wanted no part of.
Are we going to repeat that tired canard, that the war was fought to “free the slaves?” Slavery would have gone away in 20 years regardless of who won the war. The economics just weren’t there to keep it in place. And without the fugitive slave act, the south couldn’t have effectively kept slavery in place anyway. Slavery was doomed regardless of who won the war.
The war of northern agression can be summarized thusly; the tyrant won. And as usual, history is written by the victors.
I’m sorry, but your argument is just not very apropos. Drugs are small and can be hidden. You use them in private. How exactly do you think that Southerners could have had millions of illegal slaves working in their cotton, rice, and tobacco fields without anyone noticing them?
Well people have always been people, I wouldn’t expect anything any different.
Ahh...the devil is in the details. Thanks for pointing this out, as you can tell, I am not a farmer.
Now that's an innovative solution. And thanks for the link.
“Although I do not think Paul is correct that the North should have bought the South’s slaves.”
The South required slaves for their economy and they would have scoffed at the very idea.
Ron Paul is a loony tune.
I find it helpful when faced with that argument to quote the Mississippi Declaration of Causes of Secession:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
I was raised in central California on a ranch 10 miles west of Madera, a small farming community. My mother and father were Texans as are all my relatives. I did have an uncle in Virginia.
LincolnCare socialized medicine should have been mandated coverage by owners for their slaves. Would have bankrupted the South. /sarc
Why were they being hid? Because local LEO's were obligated under the law to return them, that is way. They were not being hid from bounty hunters. This is not Rocket Surgery here. The war was not fought to free the slaves, it was fought for other reasons.
Considering the overt racist policies in the North and South well into the 1960s, pretty much proves to me that the average Union solider did not leave his home to fight for some sort of 21st century “Politically Correct” notion of fighting “racism and oppression”.
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.