[Bastiat_Fan]

What did we gain out of the Civil War, aside from a stronger and more intrusive federal government? Nothing. Slavery could have been ended just like Paul said, buy the slaves and free them. No matter the cost, it would have been cheaper than 600,000 dead Americans. The Civil War was about power, nothing more. All it did was set us further down along the road to an all powerful intrusive state.

The costs of the Civil War were absolutely horrendous, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the complete destruction of the southern states, and the hundreds of thousands dead. All for what? A more powerful federal government? Yippee.

I got a little off topic there, but this quote sounds perfectly reasonable to me

So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

If everyone else in the civilized world could figure out how to do it without bloodshed, why did we waste 600k lives on fighting the Civil War?

[gusopol3]

The south had seceded from the Union beginning 12/20/1860, thereby , in its mind ,removing itself from the jurisdiction of the USA and its President. Therefore who was the "we" that was going to buy the slaves, even if the south had been willing to sell them, which they weren't as slavery was the basis of the region's economically productive labor force? Lincoln, whom Paul and you blame for the war, did not become President until 3/4/61. In his inaugural, he explicitly reassured the South that the fugitive slave provisions of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme court would be upheld. Their answer weeks later was to attack Fort Sumter. Contrary to the lie you have repeated, the major benefit to the civil war was to preserve the union, and second ,to free the slaves, not to expand the federal government. By the way a government whose "iron fist" allows one group of people to enslave another group seems to be a lot more intrusive and rights grabbing than anything we have today, for without the fear of that government, the enslaved ones would certainly sneak up to the house and murder the owners in their beds and run off.

[gusopol3]

If everyone else in the civilized world could figure out how to do it without bloodshed, why did we waste 600k lives on fighting the Civil War?

sorry, stupid question, not you, the guy you're quoting.Lincoln answered it March 4, 1861:

"One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections, than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all, by the other.

"Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you."

Now which of these other countries that Paul so admires, even idolizes for their wisdom, was in a similar situation? Weren't the bulk of their slaves in distant, subordinate colonies? Could you draw a line on the map to designate free and slave areas, as we could with the U.S.? Either Paul is unforgivably stupid or he is motivated by terribly distorted values.