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.....

[southernsunshine]

“There was a lot of wrong on both sides in that conflict”
____________________________________________________________

You state the truth. Failures of leadership, on both sides, is the main reason the differences between the two escalated to a full blown Civil War, IMHO.

[Michael Barnes]

Yeah, because the Civil War was ALL about slaves (rolls eyes).

[Theodore R.]

Buying slaves was not an option because the treasury had no where nearly enough funds to make such purchases.

[OneWingedShark]

>And by way of theology, Jesus is the Christ our Lord not because he is the son of God only, but because he IS God.

I quite agree: He [Jesus] is God’s Word made Human, the Light of the World.

>America is based on the concept that all men are created equal

On this I agree. {Side/theological note: Jesus is/was NOT Created.}

>= [I?]F you[’re] King George you were not created our ruler.

No, not created; but perhaps appointed. Those are two different words/ideas. {God does allow/appoint the evil to rule, for a time, to further His own goals: see Daniel and the Babylonian Captivity.}

>The concept is the dagger at the heart of hereditary rule.

You’re not separating “hereditary rule” from that of “Justice”/righteous. Jesus can claim BOTH hereditary rule _AND_ that of Righteousness; just like he can Claim both Humanity and Deity... just like light _is_ a particle and a wave.

>If all men were created equal, then why does some man in England dare to call himself my King?

Why does some man call himself your supervisor [or boss]... assuming you are both not unemployed AND not self-employed?

[MV=PY]

Thanks for the reference. Just ordered it.

[KevinDavis]

Sorry the South started the war.. Who fired the first shot??

[Cold Heat]

Thanks for the reasoned post. I was reading down the entire thread and thought that the full moon was affecting people....................................

[The Pack Knight]

Every Union General had slaves , No Confederate General had Slaves.( Those southern Generals that owned slaves prior to the war freed them) Jefferson Davis did not own slaves but Abe Lincoln did. ( Northern Historians like to omit the fact that Lincoln's wife owned slaves).

Wow. Just wow.

[Cold Heat]

Lincoln was a blood thirsty tyrant, regardless of how history paints him.

I don't see the blood thirsty part, or the tyranny.

What I see when I study the history, is essentially a pissing contest between the central government and a president with a legacy to protect, and a bunch of states who wanted out of the family tree at any cost.

Someone had to win and someone had to lose. The fight was going to happen in any scenario.

[Vigilanteman]

You are correct. The proposal to use funds from the sale of new land in the west to buy out the slaves was proposed as early as the 1844 presidential election by minor party candidates. William Wilberforce got slavery abolished in England in 1838 by using public funds to buy them out. Unfortunately, the Nat Turner rebellion at about the same time scared many southerners away from what would have been a logical solution.

[allmendream]

I voluntarily entered that contract and can voluntarily erase it as well when I find a better job. Lets not compare employment with the armed force involved in governance.

The concept that all men are created equal is antithetical to the idea of a man being appointed created or otherwise divinely our king. Our revolution was directly anti royalist in concept and execution.

The kings of Europe DID claim a divine right to rule.

We put that claim to the test, to their detriment and our relief.

I cannot believe it is a point of contention with you. Do you propose support the concept of Queen Elizabeth of England being our divinely appointed ruler?

Our revolution put the lie to that claim.

[southernsunshine]

Shooter - have you ever studied Nullification? Or have you ever studied the resistance to expansion of Federal government power which was in play leading up to the Civil War?

I am one Southerner who does not deny that slavery was an issue leading to the war. However, there were other factors in the totality of the escalation of hostilities which lead to full blown war. The Civil War was not predicated solely on the issue of slavery. Resistance to the expansion of Federal power was more directly involved than was slavery.

[DoughtyOne]

I used to think quite highly of Ron Paul. His comments about Constitutional matters had me thinking he was a pretty solid guy. This was about fifteen to twenty years ago. Nowadays, the guy has destroyed my ability to have any respect for him at all.

[knittnmom]

Someone should point out how well that works in the Sudan and elsewhere.

[southernsunshine]

To your post 369.

I agree. It was more about a pissing contest. Power, legacy, and rebellious men.

I just don’t think anyone won that conflict. True, the Union did defeat the Confederate forces and occupy the Southern states for a time after the war. But there wasn’t a family, on either side, which was unhurt by the unholy conflict.

[CLRGuy]

>Ron Paul is a kook.

And Lincoln was a tyrant.

[mainsail that]

My bad, so who was a slave, just the nieces and nephews of the last slaves brought in 1808?

[BradyLS]

The Union DID pay. In blood and treasure!

[rogertarp]

Paul is so wonderful. Would you rather kill 500,000 Americans or buy the slaves and let them go? The war wasn’t over slavery anyway. It was over the 10th amendment states rights.

[OneWingedShark]

>I cannot believe it is a point of contention with you. Do you propose support the concept of Queen Elizabeth of England being our divinely appointed ruler?

LOL - You are seeing a “point of contention” only where I am pointing out the deficiencies in definitions.

>The kings of Europe DID claim a divine right to rule.
>Our revolution put the lie to that claim.

Just because some that claimed “Divine Right to Rule” did NOT have that right does NOT mean that ALL who claim it do not. {this is why I brought up Saul & David, both were appointed [anointed] by the Priest Samuel... to argue that they [EITHER of them] did not have the [Divine] Right to Rule is to deny that Samuel was God’s Prophet & Priest.}

>I voluntarily entered that contract and can voluntarily erase it as well when I find a better job. Lets not compare employment with the armed force involved in governance.

How is that different from States entering a contract [the Constitution]? Why is it that States cannot “voluntarily erase” that contract when they find a better Union?