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 ...
Amen!
A true Renaissance man! ;)
I admire Paul for sticking to his guns the way he does in the House — if more Republicans were like “Dr. No” when it comes to Constitutionality we wouldn’t be faced with nearly as many problems as we are on this very day... [When I see a tally with Dr. Paul as the only (or one of a few) “no” vote(s) it’s the first indicator to me at least that back-room deals have happened to secure others’ votes, and that there is probably something very questionable Constitutionally with the bill in question].
Where I personally have a problem with Dr. Paul it comes from two things:
1. I think his intelligence is such that he doesn’t realize when he has “skipped some steps” in explanations and others can’t follow how he’s gotten from here to there. The fact that the majority of our populace is woefully uneducated in regards to the Law, History, the Constitution and the Government itself does NOT help in this. The meaning seems to get “lost in translation” particularly in live interviews — his prepared statements and papers are flawless when it comes down to getting to the heart of MANY (mostly economic) matters, when it comes to the daily workings of DC, and how that effects our Constitutional rights.
2. The thing that REALLY got to me during this last election cycle was Paul’s insistence on using the “left’s” playbook in regards to the anti-War sentiments. Instead of taking the time to explain why the course of action was wrong in his LEGAL opinion when it came to Iraq and Afghanistan (letters of marque, etc...), he ALLOWED the message to turn into one of anti-American propaganda. The majority of those young folks that supported him in the last election I do not believe really understood/understand a whole lot, but recognized the anti-war rhetoric as something they could relate to while simultaneously realizing that the Dems weren’t going to solve the problems, either. I truly think Paul failed with a major opportunity to educate a great many young people who were attracted by his campaign — instead of teaching them it seems as if he left them to their own devices when it came to actually understanding some of his objections, and when they didn’t understand his they replaced it with their own (which usually stemmed from their liberal professors and the media).
When Dr. Paul let his “handlers” take page after page out of the liberals’ blame America first playbook that’s when he lost me (it was even earlier when the LP lost me over this issue...). I am very much against being an aggressor, but any libertarian worth their salt is VERY much FOR DEFENSE - especially a strong NATIONAL defense!
Maybe I’m missing something important here, but it really does seem that over the last few years when it comes to this particular issue there is a disconnect - and a rather serious one at that.
Oh please, there are huge numbers of people that detest Lincoln and see him for what he was that aren’t Paulbots. I never even knew he hated Lincoln and I have always detested stinkinLincoln. He was a blood thirsty tyrant.
he only justice was that Lincoln died with his war.
_______________
Indeed.
>Men were not meant to be ruled, but to be free.
Then explain the paradox of [man’s] Freedom in Servitude, to God, the Ultimate Ruler.
>Free men may elect men to govern them. Only slaves are ruled.
I disagree. Again I point to Jesus who _is_ the Ultimate Governor _AS WELL AS_ the Ultimate Ruler. {i.e. If I had a choice to be governed it would be Jesus [He is, after all, Prophet, Priest, & King]; but if He declares Himself to be Ruler, who am I [or you] to disagree?}
>All aristocratic “right” to rule, yes. By embracing the concept of aristocracy you embrace your own slavery.
Oh, Epic Fail on the spiritual front! [You have _not_ differentiated spiritual from the physical to counter my examples of David and Saul being Divinely Appointed to rule.]
Galatians 3:28 - “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
>Unless you deem yourself a rightful ruler, in which case you are a wannabe tyrant who would enslave his fellow man.
So you would call Jesus [and all the Saints] a “wannabe tyrant”?
Rev 1:5-6 [KJV]
“And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us *kings and priests* unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”
As you can see, here Jesus makes us [Christians] into Kings and Priests for/to/of God.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement;
“Interesting to see so many conservatives supporting such a leftie so strongly. Perhaps it’s because he’s so iconic and has been made into such a larger-than-life mythic figure.”
I can tell you that being born and raised in Illinois Lincoln was/is viewed as a god by many. The reverence and respect fostered in the children growing up there is obvious, and over-the-top.
As I explained to my oldest the other day here is a very over-simplified version of the Civil War as taught to me in Illinois’ public schools: Lincoln is the greatest President to have ever lived, the Civil War was completely and totally about those “ignorant racist Southerners” who ALL wanted to own black people, Lincoln freed ALL of them, and everyone was happy (except those who still to this day wish they owned slaves).
Most of his followers that I run into, are ignorant on Islam as well.
He was a savage beast, similar to that thing squatting in the Wh right now.
Actually, I thought that your post was excellent. I also think that Ron Paul let his (arguably) Constitutionally-based anti-war stance be co-opted -- to an "at least troubling" extent -- by the anti-military, Anti-American Left. That may have been more of an oversight than an intentional indulgence, but it was a mistake which turned off a lot of Conservatives and not a few libertarians.
Contrast that with the way that Rand Paul preaches the message, declaring that he believes that National Defense should be the single largest component of the Federal Budget. The largest percentage of a much smaller Federal Budget, true; but at least he's emphasizing the priority that National Defense should enjoy within the very few things that the Pauls believe that the Federal Government is supposed to do. Rand is stronger on his advocacy of this position, and presents his argument better, than Ron has ever done. (Unfortunately).
Please.
Seriously.
Tell me that this is an April Fool’s joke done in the poorest taste imaginable.
Either way, at the risk of giving myself a headache, here’s the answer...
I am in no way speaking of the moral imperative of divesting oneself of the ownership of other human beings, and am limiting myself to just the economic factors. There is no moral justification for declaring ownership over another human being, but it made a certain sort of sense from an economic view.
Just to humor Ron Paul, lets say that on Monday morning, every single slave owner in the south decided to sell every single slave at 5:00 PM to the highest bidder.
At 5:00 PM, the slaves are sold and are taken to the north where they are freed. Slavery is outlawed.
Problem solved, right?
No. Because come Tuesday morning, the cotton will still need to be picked and the crops will still need to be planted, and the hay will still need to be bailed, and so on.
Even if the North had paid twice the going rate, that would have spelled the instantaneous end of much of the economy of the South. There wouldn’t have been enough free workers (i.e., people who were qualified to do skilled labor and who weren’t former slaves) to go around, and those which existed would have been able to charge whatever they liked for their services.
If the slaves were sold at 5:00 PM, but slavery somehow wasn’t outlawed, southerners would have simply imported more slaves and nothing much would have changed.
Slave holders were unwilling to lose everything and completely wreck their economy. It was that simple.
Again, regardless of how much economic sense it seemed to make, nothing made the status quo (slave ownership) morally correct.
Thanks — I was hoping someone understood where I was coming from! :) I admit to not knowing much about Rand, but he sounds more to my liking... Hopefully, he has been watching and is able to learn from what I see at least are mistakes his father has made in the past, and then ultimately succeed where he has failed. I’ll be looking into him, and watching with hopeful, but tempered expectations. :)
Not surprisingly, in my experience that is exactly the approach to teaching the Civil War in Minnesota public schools as well.
I took the time to read through this entire thread and have learned .... I have a lot of reading to do.
Besides fishing, I think I found a summer project :)
So long as slavery was legal “buying” the freedom of slaves within the USA (even if all slaveowners were willing to sell at some price) would only mean a similar number would be imported again. Under the conditions of the time (i.e., views in the south) no constitutional amendment or even congressional legislation could have outlawed slavery without first fighting the civil war. The south was determined to maintain a balance of “slave” and “free” states precisely to guarantee that slavery could not be outlawed. The conflicts in Missouri and Kansas etc. over slavery were intense and bloody. The idea that anyone as President or in any other position could have merely waved a magic wand and purchased the freedom of all slaves while simultaneously arranging a permanent abolition of slavery is a fantasy. Ron Paul is ignorant of the basics of antebellum history and politics.
Why would they be "taken" to the North? What right would the North have to forcibly displace free men?
Rather, with something like $3 Billion in monetary capital from Compensated Emancipation floating around the South and looking for Labor, it's probable that most blacks would have remained in the South and gotten jobs. Employed in agriculture again for the most part, sure; but as free men.
First, I am not jumping on the bandwagon re: attacking you for supporting Dr. Paul...
I would however like to understand where you are coming from in saying that Iran poses no threat to us as a nation (if you’re speaking from a purely direct military threat then I would agree — good luck to them getting troops anywhere near the US). However, the threat from Iran IMHO is more of a “de-stabilizing” nature, and of course their “non-official” support of terrorist groups who ARE able to not only “get here”, but have indeed completed successful attacks. (Feel free to respond via Freepmail if you want so as to not divert the thread.)
Supply alway crops up to match market demand.
The south relied very heavily on manual labor. If you could have waved a wand and taken those laborers (i.e., slaves) away in one short day, the next day the people in the south who had owned slaves the day before would have either had to sit by and watch their economy crash, or would have to find new workers.
Assuming that the plan to actually purchase freedom for the slaves had worked, the “need” for new slaves, and the money to buy them would have both existed in the south.
When the alternative would have been economic devastation, the supply would have come into being one way or the other.
Yeah, I like Rand a little better myself. Not personally, mind you; Ron Paul seems like a very nice person, a good Christian doctor and family man, etc. But politically, I think that Rand Paul is a little more solid on prioritizing National Defense within a smaller Federal Budget, and preaches that small-government message in a little more pragmatic and accessible manner.
Although I've always admired Lincoln, I have to say this is an interesting thesis. It was Lincoln who started the income tax.
However, this theory would have to be showed in the context of all the other major historical events to be truly believed.
LOL who says the slaveholders would have sold. The Deleware slaveholders were offered the same deal. They refused.
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.