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

[onyx]

Iran is not a threat-CNN

[onyx]

I think this is the one who was gushing about “our beloved Ron Paul” last week.
Scary.

Oh, okay. Young feller, then.

I won't add to his upsets...lol.

[wardaddy]

The north unlike Britian never really considered compensation.

[wardaddy]

You have links to prove that notion?

[wardaddy]

if not the greatest president we’ve ever had.

only to a Yankee

[wardaddy]

I’m not much on Ron Paul and I’m ambivalent about Lincoln.

But the warring parties here can each have their own God...they deserve each.

[GloriaJane]

"And just how many do you think they would’ve been able to get away with?"

Oh, you want imaginary numbers to go along with an imaginary "what if" that's been going back and forth way too long.

Ok, I guess if it were anything like now.... Lets see... if the southern states, who didn't want to abolish slavery smuggled in new imaginary slaves, how many new imaginary slaves do I think they would have been able to get away with?

LOL Sounds kinda like a 5th grade math quiz. LOL

Hmmm... well, if it's anything like today where our government hasn't really had their hearts set on following our laws on real illegals .... and because back then they couldn't smuggle imaginary people in as quickly as they smuggle in today's real illegals... hmmmm oh, maybe about a million poor imaginary souls.

Have a good one!

[BnBlFlag]

“Only to a Yankee”

LOL! Well said. Have you ever seen such a covey of South hating PC Yankee idiots?

[wardaddy]

it’s the dark underside of this forum...an utterly PC view of South, Slavery and Lincoln.

God help us and this is conservatism

I am waiting for proof of how Lincoln pleaded with my kinfolks to buy all their slaves....I can just see Sumner and Stevens and the other Pelosis of the day clamouring for that..lol

The Radicals wanted war and wrath...and nothing less and over much more than just the slave issue

Lincoln mused about paying off slaveowners in Delaware after he emasculated the state.

now before they go nuts here ...I will state for the record that Lincoln’s surrender terms were admirable...and would have been rejected by your average Yankee freeper I’d wager

[LibertyRocks]

Glad someone said it — took me years of being out of school and studying on my own (was born and raised in the “Land of Lincoln”) to really understand the Confederates’ side of the story. When one understands that it REALLY wasn’t about slaves, but that their objections were really about the 10th Amendment and the overstepping of the Federal Government you’re getting somewhere near the truth then...

It’s also a great object lesson into a relatively current event in which we can see the “victors write the history” very clearly.

The sad thing is that the whole subject is so fraught with emotion for so many to this day that one cannot have an intellectual discussion on this topic without having to defend oneself against charges of racism... at least that has been my experience. If one shows respect for the Confederates at all (again in my experience), you find your IQ seemingly drops 100 points in the eyes of the person across from you... But again, when one has been taught over and over that it was all about the slaves what would you expect?

It’s the loss of this understanding of how our Republic was supposed to work in light of the 10th Amendment that has led us to the position we find ourselves in today.

[PS - 21twelve; I don’t know how old your son is, but don’t give up... It was extremely enlightening to me when I was able to not only see “both sides”, but able to actually understand some of the more complex issues behind it — it also greatly assists me to this day in regards to always having a “questioning” mind when it comes to any government official or agency. Wish I could give you some advice on how to perhaps counterract what your son may be learning in school, but all of my understanding came after I was already an adult... As for my children - well we homeschool, so it’s easier to give them a more balanced view, IMHO.)

[KTM rider]

Paul is an idiot . The Civil war was not to free the slaves

The civil war was fought over the norths tyranny of trying to control the southern states prices of raw commodities like cotton, tobacco and peanuts etc. Slavery was used as a leverage , always threatening abolition to hold power over the southern states

[Christian_Capitalist]

Absolutely and totally wrong. Every economist who has studied this has concluded that slaves had an inherent property value far, far above their labor value. This is not in debate among the economic historians who have written on this. Only goofballs like DiLorenzo still try to make this silly argument.

Nope. You're incorrect. The value of the expected labor (in terms of the value of crop production) derived was the primary determinant of what price slave-holders were willing to pay.

When planters purchased slaves the prices they were willing to pay presumably reflected their expectations about the value of the labor that the slave could be anticipated to supply in the future less the costs of maintaining the slave8. Although slaves were employed in many activities, by far the most important of these was rice cultivation. Thus it seems reasonable to suppose that the derived demand for slave labor in the production of rice was the primary factor in regional demand for slaves. The price of rice exports at Charleston provides a good index of the strength of demand for this crop, and consequently of the value of slaves to rice producers9...

The reduced form equations show that the primary determinant of slave prices was the price of rice. Evaluated at the sample means, the elasticity of slave prices with respect to the price of rice was 0.97, indicating that a one percent increase in rice prices would cause an increase of 0.97 percent in slave prices. In the quantity equation, the strongest effect was due to the trend variable. But the coefficient on rice prices was also positive and statistically significant at the 10 percent level.

Slave Prices and The Economy of the Lower South, 1722-1809

Peter C. Mancall
University of Kansas

Joshua L. Rosenbloom
University of Kansas and NBER

Thomas Weiss
University of Kansas and NBER

These are professional economists, supporting my argument, NOT named DiLorenzo -- and you've cited no evidence in support of your argument.

The value of the crops which could be produced with slave labor, determined the value of that labor to a slaveholder, which determined the price he was willing to pay.

This put an "upward bound" on the top prices for slaves, which ensured that Compensated Emancipation succeeded in the other Western nations where it was attempted.

[Christian_Capitalist]

Well, yes, it would have. If all current slaves were freed, and it’s an illegal act to import any new slaves, anyone who tried to own slaves could be sent to prison for the act.

[AlbertusMagnus]

Just a note. The Founders considered the several States to be Sovereign independently. That's why the Declaration of Independence refers to "Free and Independent States" (plural, not singular.) A "State" is not by definition a sub-jurisdiction of a larger political entity. A State is a country, a nation ("Nation-State" or "City-State" to use historical examples). Legally, the United States is a confederation of nations or states. Therefore, the Southern States are independently sovereign, the same as the Northern States. The question of the Civil War centers on one issue: Is secession legal? If it is, then the war prosecuted by Lincoln would be illegal under the Constitution. And if the States are sovereign, then secession is in fact legal.

[OneWingedShark]

>Germany has done far better under constitutional republic governance than under a strong paternal Kaiser or Chancellor. Both for themselves and their neighbors.

Just because it’s done better under a Constitutional Republic does not mean that it did not do well under a Kaiser/Chancellor/Emperor/Fuhrer. {’Well’ in terms of prosperity/direction as opposed to morally.}

>The concept that all men were created equal was at the time a blatant slap in the face of the aristocracy. Our revolution was directly and vocally anti aristocracy and the supposedly divine right of Kings, and instead all about the UNIVERSAL natural rights of man.

Question: Does the universal rights of man preclude ALL aristocracy and hereditary rights? If so, is there a distinction between spiritual heredity and physical? If there is, explain Exodus 204-6 (part of the 10 Commandments), wherein God says that sin/inequity will be visited to the third and fourth generations AND that He will show love to a thousand generations of those who keep His commandments. ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:4-6&version=NIV )

>A constitutional republic of limited and enumerated powers

Technically speaking the [English] monarchy was/has-been a Constitutional Monarchy since the Magna Carta.

>was thought by them to be the only form of governance compatible with the natural rights of man.

I disagree with them then. Any government that is instituted by man is flawed, because man himself is flawed, and will become corrupted over time; or do you deign to defend our 111th Congress as uncorrupted? (I wrote this when they were doing the AIG thing: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dv698tm_22dr6x3nfb )

A Constitutional Republic DOES [indeed] have the [possible] advantage of denying the corrupt a permanent position; however, Teddy Kennedy and John Murtha are [recently living] proof against the infallibility thereof.

Also...
>Our revolution was directly and vocally anti aristocracy and the supposedly divine right of Kings

Then explain “Kennedy’s Seat” and Murtha’s tenure, and the Bush Dynasty. As far as I can tell we have become a semi-hereditary government.

[LibertyRocks]

Growing up in the suburbs of Chicago, I would have to agree with you... It’s not as if the majority of folks in the North at the time (or even now) were any “less racist” than those in the South. It wasn’t until the Civil War started losing “popularity” in the North that Lincoln started really pushing on the morality meme of slavery. Heck, at least in the South (in times past) you knew where you stood — in the North?? It’s all behind the back, and behind closed doors - it’s much more insidious, and frankly way more disgusting than those who proclaim their beliefs openly... I have no respect for anyone who bases a person’s worth upon the color of their skin, but even LESS respect for those who will smile to your face, and rip you to shreds when you’re not around...

[allmendream]

All aristocratic “right” to rule, yes. Men were not meant to be ruled, but to be free. Free men may elect men to govern them. Only slaves are ruled. By embracing the concept of aristocracy you embrace your own slavery. Unless you deem yourself a rightful ruler, in which case you are a wannabe tyrant who would enslave his fellow man.

Either way aristocracy is slavery and tyranny, antithetical to the natural rights of man that our founders recognized.

[Texas Federalist]

Just to add support to your point, Lincoln didn’t free the slaves in the Union slave states, only the south. This shows the slave issue was a pretext. No doubt the slave issue was big for the south. But to say the war was about slavery alone is like saying the tea party movement is about health care.

[carenot]

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html

[mojitojoe]

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?
_______________________
Who is most people? HELL NO! Lincoln was nothing but a terrorist and a tyrant.