Posted on 12/24/2007 10:11:44 AM PST by wardaddy
Just remember that technically, by the Constitution, I believe that the importation of slaves was ended in 1808. I’m sure it was going on illegally, but legal slave importation had been stopped for over fifty years by the time the WBTS started.
That doesn’t make Paul’s comment any less stupid, however. Like somebody upthread stated, the slaves were in the hands of private owners, many (maybe most) of whom would have no more sold them to the government than a modern farmer would sell off all his farm equipment—because in those days, that’s basically what they were, equipment. A plantation owner selling his slaves to the government would have been forced out of business. And in 1860, the overarching right of “eminent domain” to force the compensated taking of property wasn’t nearly as entrenched as it is today.
If the government had tried something like that, there would’ve been a war, just like the one that really happened. The War itself was mostly about economic issues, and less about the morality of slavery, Lincoln himself admitted as much. Remember the Emancipation Proclamation did NOT free what few slaves there were in the North—it was a masterstroke of political maneuvering that gave the War a moral dimension it had lacked before.
}:-)4
He was for pork before he was against pork... Or he's for pork, so long as it's for his district, because it gives back to the people... Which he votes against. Where's that damn line item veto?
Exactly! See post 33
Compensation to slaveowners here never really got off the ground....too many hotheads on both sides alas.
I agree that the expansion of slavery was the core issue in the runup to the war (1820s-1860.) And that expansion had everything to do not just with economics but with power.
Good post.
His notions on islolationism are retarded as well. We were very isolationist before two world wars. Our lack of presence to support our allies were historically proven to embolden the tyrants who came to power. Any student of modern world history knows this.
A better question would have been if he would have pulled out of germany after crushing the Nazis in WWII, leaving Germany and the rest of Europe to Stalin. Also, I am waiting for a question to him about our committments to Taiwan, Japan, and other stations. How far would his demilitarization go?
His policies would bring us directly to having the vacuum of power that allowed for Hitler to come to power in the first place.
Of course that is what this election is all about.
Paul = Clinton-aid.
Plenty of Clinton library money to support this.
Repeat the mantra..Clinton wins with third party help.
Our ace in the hole..Cynthia (its not easy to be green)McKinney. A woman and a black all in one candidate. Who needs Hillary liberals. If you can’t vote Republican...vote Green.
Thanks for the comment. I responded in a very similar vein to another thread about this topic and got ripped apart for thinking that Ron Paul’s view of and comments about Iraq should disqualify him for the office of POTUS, just as it does the Democrats. Anything that might help them win is unthinkable. In addition, how could you trust him if he runs as a third party after he said that he would not?
good post.
The war was not about states’ rights. It was about power. If too many free states were added to the union, the slavers would be outnumbered. So they absolutely had to have new slave states to balance out the power. And that just wasn’t going to happen, because the trend was for freedom, not slavery. Hence, the classic hotheads—South Carolina and Georgia (the lovelies that gave us the 1/4th of a person compromise in the first place) led a revolt which was rightfully put down.
I agree B.
Merry Christmas.
*i found it interesting Paul brought this up and Russert recoiled like some here...lol
Yes, I expected someone would bring up the 10th Amendment. If that were true, why was a 2/3rds majority of States required to ratify the Constitution in the first place? If the founders had in mind a unity that was so easily broken why didn't they just say, any State that wants to vote to ratify the Constitution is in and any State that doesn't is out? Instead, they needed a sizable proportion of the "whole", or the "one" in order to ratify the document which binds them together. Since the point of the Constitution was to provide for a more powerful central Gov't over the Articles of Confederation, I do think they had in mind a binding that was much harder to dissolve than some would have it.
A plantation owner selling his slaves to the government would have been forced out of business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Really? I wonder how farming continued in the south after emancipation. Seems like an owner selling his slaves would have been in a lot better shape than one who had them taken away without compensation.
Actually the legal tender was more cotton than it was the pickers.
Exactly. Does anyone think we wouldn't end up in the same situation should federalism with respect to abortion ever be enacted?
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.