Ron Paul: Why didn’t the north just buy the south’s slaves and free them that way? (Insults Lincoln)

Hot Air ^ | 3-31-10 | Hot Air.com Staff

[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.....

[FenwickBabbitt]

Oh, yes, that’s a brilliant idea gogogodzilla. Instead of attacking Islamic militants, we should attack their women and children and we should try to destroy the food supply for the Middle East. We should pillage, rape, and burn throughout the entire region. I’m sure that will work magnificently. And then we can tell the ragged, starving survivors in the area how morally superior our system is than theirs. I’m sure they will be eager to embrace democracy after that.

[gogogodzilla]

That too!

:-)

(I actually forgot about that aspect of it. Thanks for the reminder.)

[Servant of the Cross]

[gogogodzilla]

Fact of the matter is that it worked in the past... and since human nature hasn’t changed one wit since then, it’ll work now.

Whether that gets your panties in a wad doesn’t change that fact.

(Or in other words, terrorists can’t be very good terrorists if they’re too busy being terrorized.)

[LS]

LOL. You’re right. And Calhoun said something quite chilling which was a foreshadowing of the “gay” “hate speech” kinds of laws: he said that protection of slave property meant protection against any discussion or criticism of the RIGHT to own slave property!!

[LexBaird]

The capital (human, as well as dollars) that was spent was lost waging war, that could have accelerated those innovations.

Or not. Maybe it would have calcified the institution further. Unless you have specific evidence, it's all mighta', coulda', woulda'.

[LS]

Absolutely and totally wrong. Every economist who has studied this has concluded that slaves had an inherent property value far, far above their labor value. This is not in debate among the economic historians who have written on this. Only goofballs like DiLorenzo still try to make this silly argument.

[BnBlFlag]

My County is in his District and is extremely Conservative and heavily Republican. He’s very popular here and gets 75-80% of the vote in both Primaries and General Elections.

[RKBA Democrat]

“Suggest you read Tried by War, author James M. McPherson to gain some insight into the tight rope Lincoln had to walk in order bring the war to a successful conclusion.”

That’s true. The tyrant had to be savvy to win. Pardon if I don’t laud his work ethic or leadership.

[Servant of the Cross]

So I am stupid also, I guess.

It is said that the first step to recovery is to admit the problem. You're on your way.

[RGSpincich]

Why didn’t the north just buy the south’s slaves and free them that way?

The owners needed the slaves to work the plantations, etc. Does Paul expect that Union troops would have replaced the slaves after freeing them.

[Bryanw92]

>>And perhaps we’re gonna have another war over it.

If we do, this one’s going to be about slavery and states’ rights too.

[rlmorel]

I heard McCain and Romney are both related to Lincoln...:)

[Shooter 2.5]

Reap the whirlwind.

That’s what happens when some dummies take a shot at American soldiers. Some nations just don’t get the hint.

[Servant of the Cross]

Traull = Ron Paul troll

[Eagle Eye]

Why should I read Shelby Foote when your lessons are so much better?

The point is that Lincoln did not want to free slaves or
abolish slavery.

He preferred waiting until he could find a general who would endure the required death toll in order to preserve the Union.

I’ve never understood the logic of those who thought slavery was wrong but killing to free them was right.

Or the logic of killing people on a genocidal scale to keep them from having independence.

[unspun]

And in the minds of the plantation owners, with a sudden sell-off of all their slaves, who would raise and harvest their crops?

In so many odd ways, Ron Paul’s version of “conservatism” is so similar to neo-Marxist twistedness, it astounds.

[Shooter 2.5]

I think slavery wasn't even on the list of grievences that they had with the North.

Slave owners were exempt from the southern draft. The southern war to support slavery was a perfect example of "rich man's war, poor man's fight".

[Servant of the Cross]

Ron Paul should invest in some stationery with that heading.

Hey! I resemble that statement!

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks MfromO. Yeah, there’s a lot of revisionism about the Civil War, such as calling President Lincoln “that Goon Tyrant” (whomever did it), which betrays ignorance of what went on before and during the war. The tyrants were the jackasses who started the war — the ones with the whips in their hands.

Four million slaves times $500 equals $2 billion — and that’s not inflation-adjusted. Jokers who piss and moan about the economic basis of the Civil War are looking into the wrong bank accounts.