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 ...
Nonsense.
Just because there’s a “process” for going in doesn’t mean there is 1 for going out of similar type.
Again - what is really hurting the “union” by 1 leaving? Cause some upheavals, sure; but seriously, why is it so dangerous to leave, vs. enter?
The problem is that wasn't a real world option. Compensated emancipation was actually the Republican dream position, but the south would never go along with it. For years the south imposed a gag order in congress that prevented them from even talking about slavery. The British were able to impose such a solution on their colonies, but the southern voting bloc in congress would never have allowed such a program. The mere election of Lincoln, whose only express campaign policy was to stop the expansion into the territories, was enough to sent the south into rebellion. How was a scheme of compensation supposed to get passed?
The thing to remember was that, to a large and influential segment of the southern population, the earlier idea that slavery was a necessary evil had given way to a belief that it was a positive good, and that anything that said it was bad, or tried to end it, was an insult to the south's sense of morality.
It may have been looking at it from the perspective of the Confederates but that was not a main reason for the north to take them to war on the issue of slavery alone. Slavery was just the noble cause to which Lincoln sounded the alarm. Notice when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation it affected ONLY the slave states and not the border states or slaves held in northern territory. Issuing the proclamation was about encouraging slave uprisings in confederate territory and adding further stress on combat capability as well as making certain the Europeans didn't come in more strongly in support of the south, since the European political infrastructure had strong dislikes to the system (never mind that many slavers were Europeans...).
Yes, because, as NS has pointed out, things don't go to courts before they happen. As for what people thought about secession before the war, look what happened to the Federalist Party when the Democrats got hold of the fact that they'd muttered a bit about secession at the Hartford Convention. They were accused of treason and the party was destroyed. And all they'd done was talk about it.
2nd) Case law is the trend of Progressives,
Case law is how the law has been practiced and studied since LONG before the Progressive movement. Here's a helpful hint: Not everything you don't like is a liberal conspiracy.
3rd) Who cares if it’s failed or not? Irrelevent. The point is, someone felt the need to explicitly mention it in amending the Constitution. There had to be a reason for that.
As Lincoln said of the Corwin amendment in his first inaugural, "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
Says the slave master.
Oops. Poor writing.
I meant I am a ma’am.
That's because it was a military measure under his power as Commander in Chief and could only apply to the areas in rebellion. In the other areas, the abolition of slavery required a constitutional amendment, which congress refused to pass until the Republicans gained a supermajority in the 1864 elections.
Basically you're complaining that Lincoln wasn't more dictatorial.
“what happened to the Federalist Party when the Democrats got hold of the fact that they’d muttered a bit about secession at the Hartford Convention. They were accused of treason and the party was destroyed. And all they’d done was talk about it.”
I don’t think the reason they were treasonous was “secession”. The reason was more likely why I don’t like them - New Englanders didn’t want to fight alongside the “hawks” and rather continued their trade with GB. They willingly would give up to GB rather than stop their trade or help their “brothers” against them.
As far as case law - yes, but not the main manner of studying law as it has been for 100 years. The Constitution itself was primary importance, not what people not affected by Great Britain, the RevWar (which, BTW, is the model for the so-called Civil War), or the documents they themselves drew up, thought it might be generations removed.
It’s part of how we get to “the Living Constitution” concept.
Really? Perhaps you’d like to say that to the thousands of Yankees who weren’t hep on being drafted to “fight for slaves”.
Lincoln was not particularly a fan of Alexander Hamilton. Lincoln's hero, Henry Clay, had been a Jeffersonian, though he supported tariffs, a national bank, and public works.
There is very little that's truthful to that claim, save to passingly reference Clay's enthusiastic support of the aforementioned economic programs. The problem is that those programs defined Clay, much as they severed him from the Jeffersonians very early in his political career. As he matured politically he gravitated towards the successors to the Hamiltonians, starting with John Quincy Adams (Jefferson himself denounced the junior Adams' re-elevation of Hamiltonianism in the strongest of terms just a few months shy of his deathbed). For the remainder of his life Clay was the de facto leader and sometimes-presidential standard bearer of the Whig Party, which quickly gave a home to the remnants of the old Hamiltonian Federalists who broke sharply with the Jeffersonians upon the conclusion of the Monroe "Era of Good Feelings."
The Whig Party, and Clay's, protectionist economic doctrines, which were far and away the most prominent feature of his politics at the peak of his political career in the 1830's and 40's, were indeed inherited directly from Hamilton by way of Matthew Carey, an Irish-American political economist who was deeply influenced by Hamilton's 3 Treasury reports and who gained the patronage of an aging John Adams. Carey's son, of course, was the more famous Henry C. Carey, who became the most prominent intellectual figure of Whiggish economic doctrine at its height, and who played a central role in getting the Republican Party to pick up the old Whig economic agenda at their 1860 convention...and got Lincoln to sprinkle several Whig protectionists throughout the Treasury Department to temper the former free-trader Salmon Chase, whom Lincoln never much liked but took on for political reasons.
And that is where we arrive at Lincoln, linked to Hamilton through not one but two routes - FIRST via Clay, his personal political hero as a young congressman from Illinois, and SECOND via the two Careys, who provided the theoretical corollary to Lincoln's politics.
It is fair to say that Lincoln probably appreciated Jefferson the person as a forerunner in the American political pantheon. But in his daily politics Lincoln was thoroughly Hamiltonian.
This is what Wiki had to say about it: The annexation resolution has been the topic of some incorrect historical beliefs—chiefly, that the resolution was a treaty between sovereign states, and granted Texas the explicit right to secede from the Union. It was not a treaty because treaties require a two-thirds vote for passage in the Senate. No such “right” was enumerated in the resolution. The resolution did, however, include two unique provisions: first, it gave the new state of Texas the right to divide itself into as many as five states (a proposal never seriously considered). Second, Texas did not have to surrender its public lands to the federal government. Thus the only lands owned by the federal government within Texas have actually been purchased by Washington from private parties, and the vast oil discoveries on state lands have provided a major revenue flow for the state universities. Whether Wiki is true or not, I don’t know.
Kind of ironic coming from the person who would rather let slavery continue on its merry way than shed a drop of blood to end it.
But they did follow... after the Civil War.
It was called share-cropping. And the plantation owners simply paid a subsistent wage and then opened up a plantation store, with prices high enough to eat up all the wages that were paid.
Most Jeffersonians did come around to supporting those things during the Madison and Monroe Administrations.
That too is a dubious assertion, unless by "most Jeffersonians" you mean simply Madison. The Jefferson of 1825 was not far removed on matters of economics and banking and federal roads and canals from where he had been in 1795. Nor were most of the core of his old political circle - William Branch Giles and John Taylor of Caroline, the exception again being Madison who routinely differed from Jefferson in their private letters. That, and the Jeffersonians still contained even stauncher purists than Jefferson himself - Randolph of Roanoke and the Tertium Quids who broke from Madison at the outset of his own presidency only to integrate straight into the Jackson candidacy as if little had changed at all.
bookmark
It’s interesting to note, for those who say that mechanization would have ended slavery soon enough, that the end of the sharecropping system pretty much coincided with the arrival of mechanization in cotton farming in the 1940s.
i tell ya pardner....just go to any WBTS thread and watch the self righteous indignation about all this from so called conservatives
btw....many fly from the same nest* to post here...seminar callers like Rush says
i borrowed that from LGS..
Yeah. I’m not brainwashed.
Try studying outside the box. You may be surprised.
Let me guess, you’re a supporter of the Federal Reserve, huh?
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.