Gay Butcher Bump
LOL
Now using the Paulistinian logic when they attack and smear Palin, I think we now have indisputible evidence that Ron Paul supports slavery!
Who would’ve worked the South’s cotton and tobacco fields if all of a sudden the slaves were repatriated to Africa or some colony? Poor whites? Indentured servants from somewhere else? The Chinese? The economy of the South was based on agriculture, whereas the North was rapidly industrializing. The North could entice Europeans to immigrate and work in the factories, but does Congressman Paul really believe that anyone else would work the fields for subsistence wages?
Why didn’t the north just buy the south’s slaves and free them that way?
Because the war was about enslaving the States, not freeing the slaves.
If the South had seceded, does anyone think there would still be slavery there? The institution may have lasted longer but could very well have ended with minimal bloodshed. Slavery would have been ended by 1900 at the latest, the invention of the internal combustion engine would have seen to that.
The industrial revolution is responsible for ending slavery, not Lincoln who only issued the emancipation proclamation after years of war.
Lincoln’s deal was the primacy of the Federal State over the several states, and that is what we are fighting today.
As for the South, it seems they were eager for war. To them, the godless machines of the North were unholy whereas their own agrarian society was blessed by God.
Why? Because the war wasn’t about slavery. Like the coming war over ObamaCare, the war was about state sovereinty.
How anyone could vote for this loon is beyond me.
LBJ did exactly that to their progeny and Opossum is doing the same today to everyone.
Of the three greatest presidents we’ve had...Washington, Lincoln, Reagan.. Which one was a LAWYER? That says it all.
... because the slave owners would have taken their profits and purchased more slaves!!??!!??
Hello, McFly!!!!!
It is important to know that there were two “waves” to slavery in the US.
From colonial times, slavery existed to provide domestic servants and field workers to the upper classes. Good quality slaves were very expensive, about $1,000, which in today’s money would be between half a million and a million dollars. Comparable to champion race horses.
Over the course of many decades, many slaves became freemen for any number of reasons. Many became wage workers or even entrepreneurs, where it was allowed, some becoming wealthy enough to afford their own slaves.
At the same time, European immigrants worked in the North for very low wages, doing oppressively hard labor in mining and manufacturing.
Economically, however, slavery was dying, as it was just not cost effective to have such an expensive property doing field work. But this suddenly changed with the invention of the cotton gin.
This turned the economics of slavery on its head. A middle class farmer could earn enough from cotton to afford a slave, then with that slave, earn enough in a season to buy another slave. Economic boom times, by people only interested in money, seeing slaves as the road to quick riches.
This was the second wave of slavery, and soon began the pursuit to buy up new land in the West, to expand slavery. And this sent the South to loggerheads with the North.
The issue went back in forth in Washington, but the South held sway, because it had control of the US Senate, with many senior senators. But that power began to erode. The explosive industrial growth in the North, and resultant wealth, soon eclipsed the value of any southern agricultural crops.
Cheap immigrant labor and heavy industry drove western expansion far faster than could the profits of slavery. To make matters worse, the “green belt” of southern agriculture dried up west of the Mississippi.
It is ironic that the one thing that could have prevented war, a disaster, came a little too late. Had the boll weevil made it up from Mexico just 40 years earlier, slavery would have been a moot point.
Paul has crossed the Rubicon of Idiocy. Good grief.
“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.”
And just why would the slave owners have sold them? They needed them to work on the plantations.
No matter what other issues coexisted with that of slavery, slavery was the only one that proved irreconcilable by political means. As much as I would have preferred the South's view of state's rights, the existence and support for slavery was intolerable as a matter of human decency.
The bitter irony of the matter today is that condescension and a presumed need for dependency has taken the place of prejudice among the Democrat party; their ancestors in the South thought of black people as property, while their descendants in the North (including some descendants of slaves) now treat them (their own people, in some cases!) as functionally inferior beings deserving of unearned spoils, making of them slaves, this time, to the government.
“Ron Paul calls Abe Lincoln a blood-thirsty war-monger.”
He was. So what’s your point?
Here comes the mental and intellectual cowardice that continues to hold political conservatism back.
So you think that's funny? Nothing funny about an emporer invading a sovereign country with generals who wer basicall terrorists:
"My aim was, to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their innermost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom."
-- Gen. William T. Sherman aka "The Torch"
I guess Khalid Sheik Mohammad (KSM) had nothing on "The Torch"
wer basicall = were basically
LincolnCare socialized medicine should have been mandated coverage by owners for their slaves. Would have bankrupted the South. /sarc
A slavery bailout? My God this guy is a moron. And where would the north have got that money, pray tell? Wow... so much for smaller government.
Gay Butcher Bump