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.....

[Christian_Capitalist]

Then I assume that you feel that Hiroshima, Dresden, and other mass inflictions of civilians casualties are immoral, too.

Um... two out of three ain't bad?

I deplore attacks done for the specific purpose of "civilian liquidation and terror" such as the firebombing of Dresden, and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. (And, of course, the Nazi blitz of London and the Japanese Rape of Nanking, etc.)

But I am not 100% convinced that the first atomic bomb, on Hiroshima, was not of some effect in bringing the Japanese to a point of surrender, which may have saved a great many lives overall. So that first bomb is a question mark for me, and I'm open to discussion on the matter; though I'm at least very skeptical of its moral necessity.

[BnBlFlag]

“Secession has nothing to do with war. The reaction may cause war, but secession is war neutral.”

Amen! You’re rigt. Its all in the reaction.
I’m ready for Texas to Secede now! If they insist however, on doing something about it, we’ll meet ‘em on the Red River. The last time they tried to invade Texas, we kicked their asses at the battle of Mansfield, Louisiana and sent ‘em packing back to New Orleans. We can damn sure do it again if neccessary.

[Badray]

You are so right. Some think that being libertarian is an assault on the country when the opposite is closer to the truth.

In theory Paul was right about the war. If we had followed the Constitution all along, we’d have avoided the mess that we are currently in. However, because we are in that mess it is impossible (by design?) to walk away from the obligations that we entered into.

Every time that I find myself disagreeing with him, I re-examine my position. I may still disagree, but his stand is based on constitutionality and that is hard to argue with.

[Non-Sequitur]

A foreign nation abrogating a treaty is a bit different from a state withdrawing from the federal compact

OK, so say for the sake of arguement that South Carolina's act of secession was legal and they were a sovereign country separate from the U.S. That would put Sumter in the same category as Gitmo, a foreign base that happened to be located on your soil. So why would it be OK for South Carolina to shell Sumter into submission but not for Cuba to bombard Gitmo?

[Notary Sojac]

Of course Lincoln said that. It was the conventional wisdom of his age. Unlike liberals, I don't expect that someone living in 1860 is evil because he doesn't believe exactly the same things I do today.

What Lincoln did say, I believe as part of that same speech, is (quoting roughly) "the negro has the same right to keep the bread earned by the sweat of his own labor, as do I and as does every other American."

That was good enough for 1860, and that statement was one hundred percent correct in 1700, in 1860, and today.

[Non-Sequitur]

Who made this statement?

"Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population."

[AzaleaCity5691]

“the negro has the same right to keep the bread earned by the sweat of his own labor, as do I and as does every other American.”

You do of course realize that the same can be applied to the material value of the total sum of the property of the Southern slaveholders, right? That they have the right to keep the total montetary value of what they have too?

You have simply bolstered Paul’s argument with that quote.

[Christian_Capitalist]

OK, so say for the sake of arguement that South Carolina's act of secession was legal and they were a sovereign country separate from the U.S. That would put Sumter in the same category as Gitmo, a foreign base that happened to be located on your soil. So why would it be OK for South Carolina to shell Sumter into submission but not for Cuba to bombard Gitmo?

Because the base at Gitmo is not being used to collect tariffs on Cuban imports.

One sovereign country does not have the right to collect tariffs on goods coming into a foreign sovereign country. If France tried to collect tariffs on goods coming into New York harbor, we'd rightfully shell them into smithereens.

Just pointing out that if you "say for the sake of arguement that South Carolina's act of secession was legal and they were a sovereign country separate from the U.S.", then Lincoln's attempt to continue collecting tariffs at the Tariff Ports was the first Act of War. Y'all may continue with your own discussion, just making a comment.

[Notary Sojac]

the right of any person in the United States to be free of indentured servitude was not codified in the U.S. Constitution until the passage of the 13th amendment

For argument's sake, I'll accept the premise, although I do not think "indentured servitude" is quite identical to hereditary ownership of one person by another.

How about the first twelve amendments? Did a State have the power to selectively apply them, requiring (for example) trial by jury for those of a particular complexion, while waiving it for another?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

What is this New Orleans riot that you speak of?

More southern history time, I guess. In 1866, the Louisiana government enacted Black Codes, denying the recently freed slaves the right to vote, among other things. When blacks gathered at Mechanics Institute to politically organize, including a group of black US Army veterans, they were attacked by a mob organized by the mayor of New Orleans and reinforced by police and firemen. About 50 blacks were killed and another 200 wounded, although numbers may be higher.

The Klan was an organization that went after innocent civilians

You mean like those blacks who had the temerity to "march down the streets in Southern cities like black panthers did in the 60s"?

[KC_Conspirator]

Fool.

There were already abolitionists who raised money to do just this. However, due to births and illegally importing slaves, the population increased.

[Notary Sojac]

You do of course realize that the same can be applied to the material value of the total sum of the property of the Southern slaveholders, right?

They have the right to keep every bit of property they have earned. Except human beings. I will not accept that human beings can ever be defined as property.

So I guess we are done discussing this....

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Fort Sumter was not a tariff collection point.

[Non-Sequitur]

Because the base at Gitmo is not being used to collect tariffs on Cuban imports.

Neither was Fort Sumter. Duties were collected at the Customs House which was located, if memory serves, on East Bay Street.

One sovereign country does not have the right to collect tariffs on goods coming into a foreign sovereign country. If France tried to collect tariffs on goods coming into New York harbor, we'd rightfully shell them into smithereens.

And accepting for the sake of arguement that South Carolina was indeed a sovereign country, not one dime of tariff revenue was collected at Sumter. If any was collected at the port of Charleston before Sumter was bombarded it then I assume that South Carolina pocketed the money.

Just pointing out that if you "say for the sake of arguement that South Carolina's act of secession was legal and they were a sovereign country separate from the U.S.", then Lincoln's attempt to continue collecting tariffs at the Tariff Ports was the first Act of War.

But since none were collected then no act of war was committed. Not until the confederacy started their bombardment.

[AzaleaCity5691]

“You mean like those blacks who had the temerity to “march down the streets in Southern cities like black panthers did in the 60s”?

Using an isolated incident to extrapolate a supposed truth. Not a gentleman’s tactic but I’ll respond anyway.

You know full well that I was comparing the armed black militias of Reconstruction to the way that Black Panthers used to march around with guns in the 60s and 70s. Your attempt was to try and make me appear as if I was portraying the civil rights protestors as in the same vein as “Black Panthers” as a way of trying to discredit my argument.

[driftless2]

"wasn't about slaves"

Why did confederate vice-president Alexander Stephens call slavery "the cornerstone of the confederacy" ?

[Christian_Capitalist]

Fort Sumter was not a tariff collection point.

"Why was Fort Sumter important? Because it guarded a major tariff-collecting facility in the harbor at Charleston. So long as the Union controlled it, the South would still have to pay Lincoln's oppressive tariffs." -- Who Cares about the Civil War?

[Christian_Capitalist]

#717

[r9etb]

Was slavery evil? Yes. Was slavery legal, yes. I am just stating fact. Am I happy slavery is dead and gone. Of course. What, Are you some kind of historical idiot?

The South seceded specifically because it was likely that the evil of slavery was about to be made illegal. The Confederate Constitution was careful to explicitly protect the "right" to own slaves.

That, sir, is the historical fact. It takes an idiot to deny the role slavery played in the South's actions. Are you going to keep acting like an idiot?

[longtermmemmory]

because the south would keep buying slaves and having the north pay for them.

Ron Paul is a nut.