Posted on 03/31/2010 3:04:35 PM PDT by 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.....
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
You’re in for an interesting summer — it’s kind of like taking the “red pill” when one delves into this issue in a serious manner. :) I fully admit that I’m no expert and still have a great deal to learn on this subject...
You know, your post made me wonder... I’m curious as to whether children in public schools in the South are taught as we were, or whether they get a more balanced view? Is it their parents and relatives that “after-school” on these subjects as part of their cultural history, or is this subject approached differently in their curriculum? Is this truly a case of being educated in the North vs. the South even to this day (I graduated HS in 1990)? Interesting questions I’ve got rolling around in my head now! :)
You are welcome in Tennessee anytime
In rural Williamson County we get the good northerners.
In Nashville proper they get the bad Kalis.
I think we have had this discussion before! LOL (In fact, I’m sure we have!)
I graduated HS in 96 and never really gave the Civil War any more thought than what I was taught growing up. The more I learn now the more I feel ripped off in what the public system had to teach me then. And I was a "honor student" in one of the "better" preforming schools... go figure
Lincoln was a threat to what, exactly? Lincoln was no abolitionist. He WAS opposed to the extension of slavery and was an opponent of the fugitive slave act. I presume that you are a Lincoln man on those issues.
Lincoln also assumed, as did many other observers at the time, that slavery was a dying institution and that confining it within its historic boundaries would hasten that death. The slow eradication of slavery in the northern states was an instructive example. By 1860, Delaware -- still nominally a slave state -- was on the threshold of the disappearance of the peculiar institution. Maryland and Missouri were clearly headed in the same direction. Slavery would have ended with or without the war. Historians debate how soon; I lean towards earlier rather than later, but the institution's days were numbered in either case.
The deep-south slavery perpetualists saw the same dynamic at work, and feared it. This was the radicalism that drove secession, not northern abolitionism.
Myself, my daughter, my grandchildren and many friends attended Southern schools. I can assure you we were taught the same (incomplete) version of the Civil War as you.
As a youngster I was confused when my elderly relatives (who would be well over 100 yrs of age now and are long deceased) would refer to it as the War of Northern Aggression. I had been taught differently in school.
As an adult I found a personal interest in the Civil War era and began researching. Boy, talk about an eye opener!
Such an unfair name for the war; slandering many Northerners who opposed the military invasion of the South.
I have long thought that one of my American History/Government professors in college had it right. He exclusively referred to the late unpleasantness as "The War of Federal Aggression". As do I.
Please see my response to LibertyRocks @ #466 to answer your question to how the Civil War is taught. I’m fairly certain it is standard teaching across the US.
Research amazed me as to how much I wasn’t taught! I came away with the personal opinion that the root causes of the actual War were failure of leadership, on both sides. Now I think it’s inexcusable to continue teaching this part of US history this way.
While debating Stephen Douglas in 1858, Lincoln doubted that states had the power to declare negroes voting citizens, and “if the state of Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise of it.” He added:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Lincoln started out as a racist, using the “n” word, telling co*n jokes, and enjoying minstrel shows. He was born into a racist family, in a racist region of our country, during a racist era of our history. It would have been amazing if he had not begun his life as a racist.
Indeed
I agree. It’s as unfair as the moniker “War of Southern Rebellion”, which slandered many Southerners who opposed the hostilites altogether. I also agree with your professors, and you, as to “The War of Federal Aggression”.
If you do decide to study the War I hope you find it as fascinating as I have.
I couldn’t fall asleep so I thought I’d get up and peruse the FR threads and am glad I could answer a question for you.
I read your response and appreciate the feedback.
I am now committed to educating myself on the subject from here on and have also moved another giant step closer towards the decision of homeschooling my two boys.
that has always been my view...and an enormous loss of good young men....and are they appreciated today?
and now we have the same problems just no slavery...the road to hell.....and all that
and the war created a Federal Leviathan that did not exist prior...is that a good thing?
i reasonable folks can debate that
I forgot to include you in my response @ #471.
Better go back to bed!
Thanks! Very kind of you.
Much obliged.
Thank you so much for the welcome! It’s great to be here! I ditched tv and was looking for a conservative news site. What a wonderful place to be:)
Homeschooling is a great service to our children. I’ve been trying to convince my daughter to do the same. You have my best of wishes if you decide to pursue that route.
By the same token, what right would the North have had to negotiate a price for free men? They wouldn't have exactly have been free if the government could freely buy and sell them.
What would have happened if government had bought the slave's freedom and then turned their back, leaving the former slaves in the south? I guess we can never really know, but my guess would be that history would have unfolded much as it did after Reconstruction, except that it would have been even worse for black people.
If blacks had been suddenly freed without the Civil War taking place, they would have found themselves at the mercy of a strong, powerful, well financed Southern establishment which would have had no reason at all to treat them any differently than before.
Without the Civil War, the South wouldn't have been devastated. They would have maintained their economic power and capital, while the blacks would have had nothing. They would have still had all of the money, all of the property, and all of the political power and structure. My guess would be that former slave owners would have quickly developed some sort of debt-bondage or truck system which would have economically enslaved the workers.
In the post-War South, devastated and weakened in every way, all of the might the federal government could bring to bear wasn't enough to come close to neutralizing the former power structure. After the war, Congress had to put the Confederacy under the rule of the US Army in an effort to rebuild local governments. Those who had held positions in the Confederate government were denied the right to hold office or vote again. Even with all of that, as soon as Reconstruction ended, black people were again disenfranchised with Jim Crow laws as those formerly in power began to bounced back.
There is no reason to think that if the South had been allowed to maintain itself, that blacks would have been treated decently, since they weren't treated decently after Reconstruction. I guess they wouldn't have had to have moved to the north, but not much would have changed if that hadn't been included in any hypothetical deal.
And the same to you. Your input is greatly appreciated.
No, I don’t believe the enormous loss of life is appreciated by many today. True, the Union forces were victorious over their Confederate counterparts. But, other than slaves being freed, I don’t believe there were any winners in that war. There was no family that did not suffer loss of some type during that unholy conflict.
And yes, now we have the same problems. All these years later, and all these generations removed from that time, yet the Federal Leviathan grows ever larger. Will we ever learn?
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.