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 ...
If the Federal Govt. will not follow the Constitution and the SCOTUS will not uphold, it IS THE DUTY OF ANY STATE LEGESLATURE TO SECEDE.
Secession has nothing to do with war. The reaction may cause war, but secession is war neutral.
My thanks.
And FWIW, I don't expect you to have to wholly agree with me one way or the other, for that matter; argumentative charity is quite sufficient.
Much obliged for yours, sir.
“If states are equal, then if some states claim the compact is broken and they can leave then don’t the other states have an equal right to say that the compact is not broken and that they need to continue to abide by it?”
If that were the case, then no individual could leave the US without approval from at least his locality if not the federal level.
I really don’t understand how this is difficult. It’s a natural right to “take your ball and go” and not get dragged back by those who want to stay. What is hurting the latter by the former leaving?
Wow. Just ... wow.
You probably don't even see how grotesque your statement is, do you?
Your suggestion that “slaves would terrorize whites after they’re free” is based, historically, on.....what??
LEGESLATURE = LEGISLATURE
Read that again slowly, boy. Read it and be very, very ashamed.
So Obama is equivalent to Lincoln?
Excuse me while I go shoot water out of my nose.
Well, y’see... I am an Iowa-born, Iowa-bred (and former New York resident!) transplanted Yankee who has benefitted from Southern Christian collegiate instruction in history and political economy, sir.
No, the correct answer is that Ron Paul was right.
If abolitionism was the really the issue driving all the tension and the abolitionists really had as their goal freeing those slaves they should have been willing to pay each property owner the fair value of the lifetime of the slave’s labor for that manumission while agreeing to station troops in the South to prevent any retaliation by newly freed blacks against the white population.
The formerly freed slaves would have then been free to compete openly on the market which probably would have just ended with all of them working in some form of sharecropping. That would have been the correct solution. If it really was about slavery and not about what kind of power the federal government should have.
In that imaginary world, they would have had to abolish slavery first. But the south didn’t want to abolish slavery, they wanted to expand it into the territories. But if you could somehow get them to abolish slavery and had millions and millions of dollars so you could buy up every single slave all at once, then maybe it might have worked.
We have to remember though, in the real world, not the imaginary world, but in the real world, a lot of them got away with coming up north, stealing free blacks and dragging them down south to be sold and lost among the slave population. So since that was done in the real world and they got away with it and families never saw their loved one’s again, then that would have to be taken account as well in the imaginary world.
Think elite democrats, only really bad on steroids. democrats don’t ever want to give up an once of control over people’s lives. Those democrats were not about to abolish slavery on their own. Shoot, I read that they not only wanted to expand slavery into the territories but that some held the belief that slavery should be expanded to include poor and uneducated whites as well.
Just look at today’s democrats for a lite example. How they’ve treated the American people. How they looked down their long elitist noses, turned their backs and refused to listen, called the people names like Nazi, made unfounded accusations of racist acts, so they could steal some of our freedom with their job killing health & tax bill.
And the federal government had the deed to the property on which Ft. Sumter sat, while Guantanamo is leased. The lease was negotiated with a government that hasn't held power for over half a century, and the current government refuses to accept the lease payments. So what was it that made it immoral for Lincoln to go to war after the south shelled Sumter, but would make it moral for the US to go to war with Cuba if they did the same?
You know, I've gotten in so many discussions on FR with pro-life advocates who liken the rights of the unborn today with the rights of slaves in the antebellum South.
I believe I'll mark this thread for future reference so I can quote those Freepers who appear to have been perfectly content with slavery in its time and place.
A lot of evil things are made legal by the state, abortion being an example. Slavery was evil, it was legal also. Inalienable rights come from God. You would agree that not all rights are inalienable. I don't have the right to threaten to punch people in the face. That is assult.
Then why did Confederate vice-president Alexander Stephens call slavery "the cornerstone of the Confederacy"?
The history of slave rebellions. The story of how Haiti came into being.
Also based on the fact that during Reconstruction Union authorities encouraged blacks to taunt and harass the defeated population as part of “furthering the humiliation” even handing them out all guns and encouraging them to march down the streets in Southern cities like black panthers did in the 60s.
I believe that Texas is the only state that has the right to secede (when the joined the Union, it was a written agreement. As far as the other states, I don’t know.
If you have some statistics on how many blacks were killed by whites, and vice versa, 1865-1876, feel free to share.
Re: Nat Turner and Slave Revolts --
The killing of a "Master" who attempts, by force, to to prevent a Human Being from asserting his God-given right to liberty? That can be morally defensible on grounds of simple Self-Defense.
The killing of White women and children for the crime of having "guilty skin"? Not morally defensible.
Christian ethics teach that you should only kill people what need killin', morally speaking.
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.