Ron Paul: Why didn’t the north just buy the south’s slaves and free them that way? (Insults Lincoln)

Hot Air ^ | 3-31-10 | Hot Air.com Staff

[TitansAFC]

Ron Paul: Why didn’t the north just buy the south’s slaves and free them that way?

Getting down to the last two questions here…. Most people consider Abe Lincoln to be one of our greatest presidents, if not the greatest president we’ve ever had. Would you agree with that sentiment and why or why not?

No, I don’t think he was one of our greatest presidents. I mean, he was determined to fight a bloody civil war, which many have argued could have been avoided. 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. So, I don’t see that is a good part of our history.....

[Larry Lucido]

By this retarded logic, Thomas Jefferson could have simply paid the Barbary pirates a “modest” tribute rather than spend all that $$ on warships.

[rbmillerjr]

Most Paul supporters know he is a nut and they hide their affections for the loon.

Most are conspiracy theorists as well...everything is a conspiracy.

Most conspiracies are seen as Fed caused.

It’s real neurotic and bordering on mental instability.

[SunkenCiv]

No, the war was about slavery, entirely, and it was from its beginning in the south.

[rintense]

Isn’t it ironic that an (alleged) fiscal conservative is touting a government bailout?

[AlanD]

The South would never have sold their slaves. They wanted slavery to expand.

Ron Paul is right that Lincoln was uncompromising and didn’t care about avoiding a war.

[rbmillerjr]

He’s a liberal porker from way back.

[Brad from Tennessee]

At the time of the Civil War the sharecropper system (tenant farming) was becoming a viable alternative to chattel slavery. It wasn’t until after abolition that many plantation owners realized a sharecropper was a “slave” you didn’t have to breed, buy, feed, clothe, train, whip, or chase down with a pack of dogs. Many former slaves and their descendents became sharecroppers, tied to the same rural locale for generations.

[rintense]

Well you and I know that, but others... well.

[Mark was here]

I’m sure they did something sneaky, it is the way Yankies are. :)

[central_va]

No, the war was about slavery, entirely, and it was from its beginning in the south.

If you are saying then that the Southern boys who fought that Goon Tyrant were fighting to keep people IN slavery, me and you HAVE A PROBLEM.

[GloriaJane]

Ummm excuse me, but we were talking about a what if, that would have happened before the war. Not after.

Remember? A what if they brought in slaves illegally to replace those that would have been sold as in Paul’s idea?

But if you want to ask about after, then I would assume that it would be because they lost the war and the northern solders were there for a few years during the reconstruction.

[Non-Sequitur]

Ron Paul: Why didn’t the north just buy the south’s slaves and free them that way?

Because the Southern slave owners were not interested in selling their slaves. Or would Paul advocate a government intervention and forcing the slave owners to sell? Not in keeping with his libertarian values.

[x]

The importation of new slaves was already forbidden since 1808. Read the Constitution.

There were ways of getting around that -- indentured servants, debt peonage, convict labor.

[gogogodzilla]

The Civil War wasn’t about slavery, but states’ rights.

Lincoln only latched onto slavery in the hopes of seeing a slave revolt in the Confederacy, diverting precious troops from the front lines.

[glock rocks]

Bump.

[Mark was here]

It was fought for Money. Slavery may have been an emotional rallying point, (a good one at that), but it was for the power full to benefit. It's like in Europe, the War of the Roses, Protestants v. Catholics may have been an emotional rallying point, but there were other reasons in play. The truth be told I'm not any history expert, just passing on the little I picked up on.

[RKBA Democrat]

“NO PAULTARDS DEFENDING THEIR MAN OR THEIR SUPPORT OF HIM?”

So anyone who speaks in defense of his point of view on this issue is suddenly a “paultard.” How charming.

I don’t agree with Rep Paul on several issues. But his understanding of this part of history is actually pretty good.

[humblegunner]

By this retarded logic

Ron Paul should invest in some stationery with that heading.

[GloriaJane]

"Why were they being hid? Because local LEO's were obligated under the law to return them, that is way. They were not being hid from bounty hunters. This is not Rocket Surgery here. The war was not fought to free the slaves, it was fought for other reasons. "

Oh yes! There were bounty hunters who came up here. There's a house, I think it's in Findlay Ohio where they hung one of those bounty hunters who came up here chasing slaves. It's barn is purportedly haunted with the ghost of that bounty hunter. Because it was from the barn rafters that he was hung. They claim it's haunted yet today.

[KevinDavis]

At least Lincoln wasn’t a Crossdressing coward like Jefferson Davis was...