Buying the slaves is not very practical, but there is a lot that most conservatives need to learn about Lincoln.
See, e.g., The Real Lincoln, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.
From one review of the book:
Description This is the book that made it happen: the nationwide revision concerning the man who they tried to tell us was a great liberator. Dictator and slayer of liberty is more like it. Lincoln was not the godlike figure of myth and legend but an unusually cruel political operator who exploited the moment for personal gain, just as we’ve come to expect of modern politicians.
In this blockbuster, Thomas DiLorenzo calls for a complete rethinking of a central icon of American historiography. He looks at the actions and legacy of Abe Lincoln from an economics point of view to show that Lincoln’s main interest was not in opposing slavery but in advancing mercantilism, inflationism, and government spending: the “American system” of Henry Clay.
Through extensive historical investigation, DiLorenzo shows that the high tariff pushed by Northern industries, at the expense of Southern agriculture, was the main cause of the sectional conflict. Further, Lincoln’s goal in preventing Southern secession was the consolidation of federal power and the collection of revenue, not the elimination of slavery. Introduction by Walter Williams.
Barron’s says: “More than 16,000 books have already been written about Abraham Lincoln. But it took an economist to get the story right. The Real Lincoln, by Loyola College economics prof Thomas J. DiLorenzo, is this year’s top pick in [Gene Epstein’s] sixth annual review of Holiday Gifts that Keep on Giving, When It’s the Thought that Counts.”
ISBN 0761526463
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.
Not surprising because economists understand that people do what they are incentivized to do.
Buchal....yes, Lincoln was not as “great” as people made him out to be. He was the first truly American “big government” politician.
Even more telling is that Communists adore Lincoln, for years many “Lincoln/Lenin” rallies were held in many socialist and communist countries.
And, of course, Lincoln’s goal was to preserve the union....not to free slaves. His famous quote “If I can preserve the Union without ending slavery...I would do so...”
Although I do not think Paul is correct that the North should have bought the South’s slaves.....many of the Prohibitionists were racists themselves....they wanted mainly to keep blacks out of the new territories....although his comments sure do bring out the Bat-Sewage Nuttiness of the few Liberal RINOs who totally hate Ron Paul.....
I disagree. Lincoln's initial objective was to preserve the union and then later in the war ending slavery. In achieving both, Lincoln demonstrated a great deal of sophistication and intellect as he was under a great deal of pressure from the union side including the west for a negotiated settlement. Suggest you read Tried by War, author James M. McPherson to gain some insight into the tight rope Lincoln had to walk in order bring the war to a successful conclusion.
Thanks for the reference. Just ordered it.
No big surprise Walter Williams has never been a fan of Lincoln.
Although I've always admired Lincoln, I have to say this is an interesting thesis. It was Lincoln who started the income tax.
However, this theory would have to be showed in the context of all the other major historical events to be truly believed.
Is this his summation of what America stands for? That's this guy's definition of Lincoln's sincere efforts to save a form of government of, by, and for the people? Idiotic.
EXACTLY RIGHT!!!
It’s about timew somebody called a spade a spade. I am so tired of the lie that the ACW was to do with ending slavery. Nothing could be further from the truth; and in fact Lincoln did not sign the “Emancipation” until January 1, 1863... the ACW began April 12, 1861. On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as 16th President of the United States of America. So from the date of his becoming President, until the date he signed the Emancipation, almost two years had passed, and the Civil War had raged for almost a year and a half.
Lincoln’s Emancipation was not for reason of ending slavery... It was a strategic move to incorporate slaves into the Northern Army and wreak havoc behind the Confederate lines. The North was getting its dictatorial ass whooped in just about every battle, as it rightly should have.
Lincoln should be remembered for only one thing: the abbrogation and abolition of the US Constitution... Licoln was the AUTHOR of federal tyranny, not the great harbinger of justice.
Bingo!