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]

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

Well, did Union troops replace the slaves after the Civil War? Why would this scenario be any different? Poor white subsistence farmers, freed slaves, and a small number of immigrants would have started working for wages in the South, as happened anyway. That's all.

[SunkenCiv]

Slavery was the economic rallying point, as well as the political one. But I’m down with ya regarding the political basis for so-called religious wars.

[SunkenCiv]

Well, you’re half right.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Why doesn’t 0bama buy us ALL 40 acres and a mule and free us from our bondage? ;)

[OneWingedShark]

>There was a revolutionary zeal ‘in the air’ in those days, and its manifestations were many and varied, but none so wonderful and productive as the American revolution.

Agreed; the shame of the French evolution was the eradication-of-the-’noble’-caste. {I.E. The “Just because you’re a nobleman or noblewoman you need to die...” sentiment. Contrasted to the American Revolution which was “Because of this abuse, and this abuse, and this abuse... we no longer recognize you as our leader” it shows a world of differing mindsets regarding Justice.}

>While the abuses of King George made revolution more palatable to the active third of the American population that was committed to independence, in the minds of the intellectuals of the revolution the natural rights of man was incompatible with absolute hereditary rule.

Hmmm, I have to disagree [with that thought]. Remember Israel and how they demanded of God a King? He gave them Saul, establishing a ‘hereditary rule.’ However, it was not an ‘absolute-hereditary’ line of rule, because Saul lost it [the kingship] when he overstepped the role of King and tried to assume the role of Priest; regardless, it was CERTAINLY a divinely appointed rule.

To reject, out of hand, ALL hereditary-rule as invalid... one would need to illustrate the invalidity of the rule of the Prince of Peace by virtue of being the Son of God. [Certainly if they claim to be Christian.]

>That was the principle that made the revolution great, not opposition to a man, and a king is just a man, but against a principle, against all men who would be kings.

I don’t think so. I think what made it great was the recognition that man, as Created in God’s Image, holds inherent rights [and responsibilities]... in _either_ the case of leader or follower. {Citizen or Government-official.} A truly [perfect] God-fearing leader {king, president, etc} would NOT illegitimately invalidate ANY of God’s given rights to man. Jesus is a prime example, He did NOT condemn everyone He met as Sinners, though He certainly could have legitimately done so [and He will when Judgment comes], but instead he said over and over “go and sin no more.” {The story of the unforgiving servant is a good illustration of what I’m trying to get at: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2018:23-35&version=AMP }

[FreeReign]

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

It takes two sides to make a sale, Ron.

[Badray]

What am I missing.

First you suggest that he is sane for suggesting it then when you read that there was such a plan, you call him nuts.

I would think that such an offer — before the outbreak of war and the destruction of southern property — mad some merit and I think that Paul is still more right than wrong even though I don’t agree with him all of the time.

[genetic homophobe]

Paul doesn’t know history very well. The slavery issue was a sidebar—it was the War of Northern Aggression.

That's how I see it too.

[RipSawyer]

It should be obvious that any offer to buy the slaves would have been contingent on the fact that slavery would end. The importation of slaves had already been outlawed long before the civil war era. You are attacking a straw man here.

[allmendream]

Recognition of the natural rights of man means abolition of the supposedly divine right of kings. The crowned heads of Europe had power not from God, but from armed men devoted to their cause.

The intellectuals of the revolution were committed to the principle of the abolition of kings and the idea of a representative republic.

[ConservativeMind]

Well, it’s simple. When I first read Ron’s words saying that the North should have offered money for the slaves to avert a war, that made some sense.

However, when I find that the idiot Ron condemned Lincoln for doing EXACTLY what Ron is suggesting as of today, then I had to take back my initial support of his words.

Leaving me, again, with the fact that Ron Paul is an idiot.

[Erskine Childers]

I wasn’t aware of that the North had offerred to buy out Southern slavehlders. Could you please point me in the direction of something on that?

[omegadawn]

I’am not sure what “history” you have been reading , but a few facts you might want to know. Slavery was not a issue in the civil war , it was only a political move by the north to block European support for the Confederacy. Jefferson Davis ( President of the Confederacy) was against slavery and wanted it abolished. ( He had a adopted black son). The war started in 1861 with the north attacking the Confederate States of America. Slavery became a issue in 1863. The Southern goverment offered to free all slaves if the north would leave the South alone.The Southern Congress had already taken steps to abolish slavery. The South had already intergated it's armies(yes folks, black and white served side by side to fight for the freedom of the South). Black officers were leading troops in intergated units in the 1860’s. It would take the north another 100 years to do the same. Every Union General had slaves , No Confederate General had Slaves.( Those southern Generals that owned slaves prior to the war freed them) Jefferson Davis did not own slaves but Abe Lincoln did. ( Northern Historians like to omit the fact that Lincoln's wife owned slaves). As for your belief that the north would buy the slaves, with what money? 75 % of the National budget came from taxes on the South. If you want the truth , follow the Money!!!

[mac_truck]

Looky..

[MikefromOhio]

The war started in 1861 with the north attacking the Confederate States of America.

LOL

Bwaaaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaa

[allmendream]

And by way of theology, Jesus is the Christ our Lord not because he is the son of God only, but because he IS God.

America is based on the concept that all men are created equal = F you King George you were not created our ruler.

The concept is the dagger at the heart of hereditary rule. If all men were created equal, then why does some man in England dare to call himself my King?

[omegadawn]

I am not sure what history you have been reading , but a few facts you might want to know. Slavery was not a issue in the civil war , it was only a political move by the north to block European support for the Confederacy. Jefferson Davis ( President of the Confederacy) was against slavery and wanted it abolished. ( He had a adopted black son). The war started in 1861 with the north attacking the Confederate States of America. Slavery became a issue in 1863. The Southern goverment offered to free all slaves if the north would leave the South alone.The Southern Congress had already taken steps to abolish slavery. The South had already intergated it's armies(yes folks, black and white served side by side to fight for the freedom of the South). Black officers were leading troops in intergated units in the 1860’s. It would take the north another 100 years to do the same. Every Union General had slaves , No Confederate General had Slaves.( Those southern Generals that owned slaves prior to the war freed them) Jefferson Davis did not own slaves but Abe Lincoln did. ( Northern Historians like to omit the fact that Lincoln's wife owned slaves). As for your belief that the north would buy the slaves, with what money? 75 % of the National budget came from taxes on the South. If you want the truth , follow the Money!!!

[Man50D]

Insert foot in mouth Paul.

[ConservativeMind]

I’m sorry, but you are wrong.

The Republican Party campaigned in Lincoln’s first election against slavery.

[OneWingedShark]

>Recognition of the natural rights of man means abolition of the supposedly divine right of kings. The crowned heads of Europe had power not from God, but from armed men devoted to their cause.

Ah, now you’re beginning to [tangentially] make a good case against the “Divine Right of Kings.” Israel, certainly, with the kingdoms of [both] Saul and David were Divinely Appointed. The European kings had/have no such claim.

>The intellectuals of the revolution were committed to the principle of the abolition of kings and the idea of a representative republic.

I will make his argument: Kingships, in and of themselves, are not evil; it is man who is in desperate need of the Law, and even superior to the Law: Jesus. {I.E. _Any_ human instituted government _will_ fail, because we are imperfect... Jesus is perfect and does NOT fail, nor will the kingdom He instituted.}

Can you say, with all honesty, that our [republic] government has kept the evil and/or corrupt out of power? NO.
Can you say, with all honesty, that a democracy will not embrace anything that is evil? No. {Let Abortion, the sacrifices to Moloch for the sake of convenience, declare otherwise!}