Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Ron Paul calls Abe Lincoln a blood-thirsty war-mongerer.

LOL

Now using the Paulistinian logic when they attack and smear Palin, I think we now have indisputible evidence that Ron Paul supports slavery!

1 posted on 03/31/2010 3:04:35 PM PDT by TitansAFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-146 last
To: TitansAFC
Why didn’t the north just buy the south’s slaves and free them that way?

Ron, becuase it doesn't solve the problem. Even if the slave owners agreed to selling their slaves, they would take that money and buy more slave. The U.S. had to outlaw slavery.

973 posted on 04/02/2010 12:21:33 PM PDT by notpoliticallycorewrecked (According to the MSM, I'm a fringe sitting, pajama wearing, Freeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TitansAFC
Two things about Pauls errant sentiment.

1) The Civil War was about States Rights not Slavery per se.

2) If the North brought the slaves, I'm sure the south would have been happy to sell them and import more for their own purposes. Essentially the North would have been prepared to buy all the inhabitatants of a few African countries, not just the ones in America "at that time."

976 posted on 04/02/2010 12:33:21 PM PDT by scannell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TitansAFC

Paul lacks logic - I suppose we could have purchased and freed all the slaves, but wouldn’t the south just continue shipping in more slaves?

It’s sort of like the illegal immigrants issue - I suppose that we could once again make all those here citizens, but what happens next year or years from now when 10 million more have crossed the border that want to be citizens?

Sometimes it’s necessary to step in and stop ‘stuff’ from happening, period. It’s simply the long-term view of securing results.


1,205 posted on 04/04/2010 9:46:20 AM PDT by unique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TitansAFC

Ron Paul’s vision is limited.


1,381 posted on 04/08/2010 1:57:00 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Free the Navy Seals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TitansAFC

Mr. Paul is simply demonstrating his abject ignorance.

While slavery was certainly an issue, the major issue for secession was protectionism. The South sold its cotton overseas in the UK and France and purchased manufactured good from those countries in turn. These were cheaper (even with shipping) than goods produced in the North’s industries. Lincoln supported high tariffs on the incoming merchandise. In effect the North wanted the South as a captive market for its wares.
The South, which already paid most of the Federal government’s expenses, naturally objected, and unpleasantness ensued.


1,408 posted on 04/08/2010 10:19:50 AM PDT by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TitansAFC

huh.. well I’m not reading through all 1500+ comments but the first few pages didnt seemt o mention this...

Does Paul not realize the Civil War wasn’t about slavery? Slavery was just an auxiliary component that became involved later in the war as one of the big differences between the North and South.


1,540 posted on 04/11/2010 12:15:40 PM PDT by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-146 last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson