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 ...
They would have hired back freed blacks at a higher wage?
And they were already losing economically to the North who employed their own version of slave labor?
I don’t think this would have worked.
The slave-like labor conditions of the North are very little discussed, because the Left wants to hold that region up as some sort of moral hotbed. But the fact of the matter is that many Northern industrialists wanted to destroy their Southern competition through the slavery issue.
The South could not have followed the route you outlines because they would have failed economically even faster than under their slave system.
I haven’t read all these comments but does that mean Ron Paul was For ‘Cash for Clunkers’?
Isn’t that the same type of theory?
“So, you think the Southron slavers would have settled for $25 per head for their slaves worth $500 to $1000? Especially since what they rebelled against was a “Free Soiler” being elected?”
Possibly. Setting the former slaves up with a “stake” at the very least would’ve been an improvement on what the North did post-war.
“Ron Paul is wrong if he thinks that it would have averted the Civil War, because it historically, objectively didn’t.”
The North was never very serious in the offer, as the Abolitionists were a minority, albeit a vocal one.
“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.”
To some here, Paul is more of an enemy than Obama.
On those documents, if you replaces the word slavery with "Tulip Bulb Speculation", you would of had the same effect on the secession effort and the subsequent volunteering in manpower the Confederate Armed Forces.
The kindling was the desire to be free from the onerous Federal Maw, slavery was just the match.
If there is another Civil War what's going to be the Feds bogus excuse this time?
It's called share cropping. Look it up sometime.
Respectfully -- that's an absurd contention, completely at odds with the historical facts.
The Post-War South did survive economically (albeit just barely) with an utterly wrecked infrastructure and very little monetary Capital with which to pay wages to freedman black Labor after the war; a No-War South which was flush with money from Compensated Emancipation, and with its infrastructure still intact, could certainly have better afforded to offer more jobs and higher wages to freedman blacks, than the economically-devastated Post-War South was able to offer.
Exactly, see my #507
I'm not sure it's very nice to analogize black people as "clunkers". Maybe you should read the thread comments before formulating a more accurate analogy.
Just a thought.
Seriously, I don’t think that flies.
Slaves were very visible, especially on big farms. You couldn’t avoid being noticed.
And I think feds would’ve been alot more keen on illegality then than now. While I can imagine many looking the other way, it just isn’t the same as illegal aliens now who really can go undercover - all on their own. They can pop in and pop out, not stay in a cabin on someone’s property.
Also, slavery was only part of the reason for the Civil War. It mostly had to do with the South believing that the federal government was overreaching its constitutional authority and also the north was using its superior number in Congress to force unpopular taxes and legislation on the south.
Sound familiar?
The Constitution sunsetted the trade (importation) of slaves back in 1808.
Some think they would’ve smuggled them in, but to that extent to cover all the freed natives? No way. Would never have gotten away with that.
“...the federal government was overreaching its constitutional authority and also the north was using its superior number in Congress to force unpopular taxes and legislation on the south.
“Sound familiar?”
Sounds like MD now. Another threat of secession by the Eastern Shore a few weeks ago, to add to others quite recent.
You can’t call someone’s argument “absurd” and pretend to be respectful when you do so.
Your study of history sounds like the typical, government-school version of history.
Of course the South survived after the CW. But the South was reduced to abject poverty and was just barely propped up by Reconstruction and only so they would cause a minimal economic drain.
The “absurdity” is in believing that had the North purchased the slaves from the South, all would have worked out well without a CW. The fact of the matter is that slavery, the economic imbalance, and state sovereignty were each a partial issue that contributed to the CW. But the long-held contentions between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists since the days of debating the US Constitution ran so deeply that the CW was unavoidable even if only any of these three issues would have served as the spark.
Again, the North employed its version of slave-labor. The South was spending less on labor and the North hated that and were determined to end the imbalance. They were also determined to have a strong, central government dictate to the sovereign states what was acceptable.
Slavery could have been ended peacefully because it was in fact failing economically. The best way to end slavery would have been the wait-it-out approach. But the North and those who favored a strong federal government would not allow such a good “crisis” to pass without taking advantage of it. Does this sound at all familiar? The ideological roots are one-and-the same with those who are currently creating “crises” for exploitative purposes.
So, even though you insult me and call my position “absurd,” and criticize my knowledge of history having no clue whatsoever how much I have and continue to study, you have only countered my argument with your own position and opinion and “history” that has been served by propagandists.
You may want to read “The Real Lincoln,” “The Politically Incorrect Guide to US History,” and “A Patriot’s History of the US,” to help undo some of that government-school history you are citing.
Plus, the "illegal immigrant" argument is just silly; unscrupulous contractors are able to get away with hiring illegal immigrants -- because the illegals want to be hired, and keep their mouths shut about the deal.
Unless a newly-imported slave wanted to be a slave (which kinda deflates much of the moral horror of slavery), it would be very difficult for a plantation owner to keep his illegal slave-holdings a secret.
“...it’s inexcusable to continue teaching this part of US history this way.”
Indeed.
Ever notice (at least in pub[l]ic school since the ‘60s) that this is the ONLY time, per your history classes, that the “United States” (such as it is) was perfectly moral & correct?
It’s also the only time in our collective history that Democrats today think the US (again, such as it was) was perfectly correct in its actions. The only time they side uniformly with a “Republican”.
All that in itself makes me suspicious.
By him stating he thought it would be best to just 'buy them out of their servitude' is pretty darn despicable. It removes their humanity, turning personal freedom into a transaction. It sounds like an advertisement for 'cash for clunkers'
(I know I'm not formulating this thought correctly, sorry)
I’m not in the slightest a Ron Paul supporter and I think the slave purchase idea is ridiculous, but he’s correct in his assessment of Lincoln. Lincoln freed the slaves to help win the war, he did not fight the war to free the slaves (i.e. Lincoln’s preferred solution was to ship the slaves back to Africa, a solution which turned out to be logistically impractical). The North did not want free blacks in their cities (see NYC riots) and when tens of thousands of the former slaves eventually migrated to Northern cities, they were treated like dirt and dumped into ghettos. Lincoln destroyed the independent authority of the States and ensured the dominance of the Federal behemoth that continues to grow its power every day.
Slavery would have died a natural death in the South just as it did in the North, through time and education. Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, but it wasn’t until 1804 that New Jersey became the last northern state to follow suit. Nobody suggested making war against NJ to force them into compliance.
I have no time for those who “see the light” and then demand that all others immediately follow suit. The Northern elite were like a life long smoker who suddenly quits and then becomes an anti-smoking zealot hounding as pariahs all those who disagree (and no, I’m not trying to equate smoking with slavery).
Sure I can. I think that your argument on this subject is absurd. That doesn't mean that I think that you're personally an idiot, or absurdly wrong on every subject. See the difference?
Of course the South survived after the CW. But the South was reduced to abject poverty and was just barely propped up by Reconstruction and only so they would cause a minimal economic drain.
Right. By comparison, a No-War South which was flush with money from Compensated Emancipation, and with its infrastructure still intact, could certainly have better afforded to offer more jobs and higher wages to freedman blacks, than the economically-devastated Post-War South was able to offer.
For that matter, it's highly probable that the North would have been better off economically as well -- having to face only the expense of paying a portion of a $3 Billion dollar Compensated Emancipation, rather than paying nearly all of the expense of an over-$6 Billion dollar War (this figure only represents Union expenditures) and losing 350,000 dead, as well as suffering some damage to their own infrastructure (albeit less than the South).
So, even though you insult me and call my position “absurd,” and criticize my knowledge of history having no clue whatsoever how much I have and continue to study, you have only countered my argument with your own position and opinion and “history” that has been served by propagandists. You may want to read “The Real Lincoln,” “The Politically Incorrect Guide to US History,” and “A Patriot’s History of the US,” to help undo some of that government-school history you are citing.
(Shrugs). At the present time, I'm literally the only person on the thread who's offered both historical references to the actual Compensated Emancipation programs which did work just fine in the other slave-holding Western nations which attempted such a program, as well as offering professional economic monographs in support of my arguments.
Nobody else has done so.
So, I'm reasonably satisfied with my argumentation, and the evidence which I have produced in support thereof, thus far.
“By him stating he thought it would be best to just ‘buy them out of their servitude’ is pretty darn despicable.”
Killing 618,000 people is preferable?
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.