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 ...
Paul doesn’t know history very well. The slavery issue was a sidebar—it was the War of Northern Aggression. The Southern States were fighting for their right of self government—slavery was one of the issues pertaining to that. The North was trying to do exactly what the democrats are trying to do now—eliminate States Rights...When he wrote the Emanicipation Proclamation, is was to dictate to the Southern States that Federal Law supercedes State Law. That is what the war was about. So Paul’s statement shows a total lack of historical understanding.
Just shows Ron Paul, besides being a kook, has no idea how a capitalist market works. If the north bought all the slaves to free them then the southern plantation owners would have been floating with cash to purchase more slaves.
Freaking moron.
Serious question.....
Right on the money -- the Civil War was fought over economics and the consolidation of Federal Power, slavery was a secondary issue.
Ron Paul:..."Besides, the Civil War was to prove that we had a very, very strong centralized federal government and that’s what it did. It rejected the notion that states were a sovereign nation. The people who disagree want to turn around and say, “Oh, yes, those guys just wanted to protect slavery.” But that’s just a cop-out if you look at this whole idea of what happened in our country because Lincoln really believed in the centralized state. He was a Hamiltonian type and objected to everything Jefferson wanted."
Two people come out with the same idea, but if it comes out of Ron Paul's mouth, it's just got to be "nuts" here.
RP may have been wrong about "buying off the slaves", given that Condor says it was later attempted and rejected, but he wasn't wrong about the rest. And we have been living with the results of that consolidation of Federal Power and erosion of State's rights ever since.
That erosion of States rights is what has allowed Obama and the Democrats to declare the healthcare issue and virtually everything they want to use to consolidate more power to the Federal government, to be "interstate commerce".
Yes, Jim, "sometimes you just just have to fight for freedom" but nothing guarantees that freedom like the US Constitution. And when we let government ignore it by white-washing the reasons for stomping on it -- like saying "the Civil War abolish slavery", when that wasn't really true --- then we are stomping on the very things that guarantee our Liberty. And I applaud whoever reminds of the truth of that, be it Ron Paul, Sarah Palin or anyone else.
Well, whether he was blood-thirsty or not, Lincoln was definitely a big government liberal, whose first goal (according to his speeches) was not freeing the slaves but subjugating the South under federal control. During that process, he greatly strengthened the federal government (and conversely weakened state and local power) and rescinded personal rights like habeas corpus. Beyond that, he made it clear that he did not want to have freed slaves in white society; he wanted to send them back to Africa. Read his speeches. Read the transcripts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Interesting to see so many conservatives supporting such a leftie so strongly. Perhaps it’s because he’s so iconic and has been made into such a larger-than-life mythic figure.
Slaves were becoming less valuable economically. Machines were starting to replace human labor, and had considerable benefits. They didn’t get sick and die, nor runaway; you only had to feed them when in use. Slavery would have died out in time when it simply became financially advantageous to mechanize the labor. Mechanized farming would have ended slavery just the same as it replaced horses and mules.
Reminds me of this guy http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/slaves.html who at best got scammed and at worse actually fueled a slave trade by increasing demand and enriched warlords. But he felt good...
Your mom is a kook.
It’s a shame that it took 23 replies before someone stated the obvious.
When are people going to figure out this guy is a kook and quit voting for him.. oh..., I know... because he brings home TONS of pork to his district... he is the GOP Murtha as far as I’m concerned.
Out of curiosity, where do you think Southerners could have purchased more slaves from? After all, the importation of slaves had been illegal for decades before the Civil War. Perhaps a small number could have been smuggled into the country, but they would have been few in number and likely quite conspicuous.
If Paul is a kook the Professor Walter Williams is, too. He’s said exactly the same thing many times.
nutburger with cheese.
Because that would be a legal blessing of sorts that those people are just commodities and not individuals with full rights. A FREE INDIVIDUAL can't be bought or sold. Once again, Fraud Paul is an idiot.
And it took an Income Tax Amendment to bring it back.
We were just discussing how contentious 1860 would have been with the election of A. Lincoln for President of the US without his name being on the ballot of any southern state.
from where...??
the importation of slaves had been illegal for decades at that time.
That said, Ron Paul is nuts to link the issue to Lincoln and the war. He's overlooking the timeline. The deep South seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated, and the rebels fired on Fort Sumter three weeks after. At that point, Lincoln was faced with a war to preserve the Union -- which, let us all remember, is exactly what the Union ralling cry was at the time, with the Emancipation Proclamation not coming until late 1862.
Compensated emancipation in the pre-war decades would have been desirable. In a parliamentary system, it might have been possible. But given the southern parity in the Senate, it was a non-starter unless the South agreed.
LOL!
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.