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. Besides, the Civil War was to prove that we had a very, very strong centralized federal government and that’s what it did. It rejected the notion that states were a sovereign nation.
The people who disagree want to turn around and say, “Oh, yes, those guys just wanted to protect slavery.” But that’s just a cop-out if you look at this whole idea of what happened in our country because Lincoln really believed in the centralized state. He was a Hamiltonian type and objected to everything Jefferson wanted.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5
Howard Zinn’s Biased History
By Daniel J. Flynn
Mr. Flynn is the executive director of Accuracy in Academia
Del Dolemonte on March 31, 2010 at 6:06 PM
And was codified and protected explicitly (rather than implicitly) in the constitution of those noble, misunderstood Confederates who just wanted to be left alone, to buy and sell other human beings.
Squid Shark on March 31, 2010 at 6:07 PM
Paul hates the portions wrote by Alexander Hamilton(and partly James Madison). namely Article II, the Executive has in reality been stripped of alot of its traditional power, and this numbnut tries to act like we have an imperial presidency. we most obviously do not for anyone paying attention. The problem is numbnuts like Paul’s lack of knowledge of what Blackstone, Montisqueu, Hamilton, Madision and company meant when they referenced Executive power.
A great example is the “delcaration of war” lie Paul repeats. A talking point that could be used agianst him oh so easily.
jp on March 31, 2010 at 6:09 PM
That is stupid. The Confederates wrote their own constitution which was a lot like the one they were busy betraying, except that they did enshrine the right to buy and sell people into their document.
You do not know what you are talking about.
Back then women could not vote, there was no popular vote for US Senators or presidents, there have been changes to the document over the years but the Founders did not enshrine slavery in the Constitution. When you say that you sound like one of the lefties looking for reparations basing his argument on the concept that the US is founded in bondage. It is an absurd notion and completely ignore the times in which the Constitution was written.
Terrye on March 31, 2010 at 6:09 PM
There was a reason the Brits and the French were running those blockades, it was because they wanted to see the US brought down so that they could get cheap cotton and reassert their authority in this hemisphere. The aristocrats of Britain had a lot more in common with the aristocrats of the South than either of them had with the people of the United States. And it is no accident that the people of Great Britain supported the north more than the south, while their government did the opposite. Because they knew what was at stake…the future of a free people. Too bad Ron Paul and his side kicks are too dense to understand that.
Terrye on March 31, 2010 at 6:15 PM
No, but not dealing with that abominable institution, instead of kicking the issue to future generations to solve, is their greatest failure.
Holger on March 31, 2010 at 6:15 PM
Terrye, they specifically protected the slave trade for 20 years after adoption, and they (somewhat) circuitously named them with the 3/5 clause.
Rightly or wrongly, for personal or political reasons, they enshrined the institution of slavery in our founding document. To deny that is ridiculous.
JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2010 at 6:16 PM
Actually, given our history, I would argue that it comes a close second to them writing an interstate commerce clause flexible enough that it has been pried open so wide as to make any protections against the federal government meaningless.
But it was an enormous failure, I’ll grant you.
JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2010 at 6:23 PM
“I mean, he was determined to fight a bloody civil war, which many have argued could have been avoided.”
The Reverend John Brown would’ve argued with that.
-
TwilightStruggler on March 31, 2010 at 6:23 PM
Point out the clause or amendment asserting an individual’s right to own people. You cannot because it does not exist. They did not enshrine it, they kicked the can.
Holger on March 31, 2010 at 6:24 PM
Yep. And many of them said pretty much as much. But I guess they were just a bunch of Bill Ayers, progressive domestic terrorist-types too then.
29Victor on March 31, 2010 at 6:24 PM
Slavery was a human failing, that was present in ALL countries in 1789. It was NOT POLITICALLY POSSIBLE to get rid of it at the time, period. They did however create a framework and espoused a worldview that would end it.
John Adams is one of the big name founders that refused to own slaves and knew it was immoral.
lets not flatter ourselves, there are plenty of accepted sins we tolerate to this day, denying basic Human Rights to others. Abortion is at the top of the list, it is rationalized using the same type of logic(Property Rights) that was used to justify Slavery for 1000′s of years. One Human can have Ownership over another, lesser human.
jp on March 31, 2010 at 6:28 PM
Why didn’t Harriet Tubman build her railroad above ground?
SouthernGent on March 31, 2010 at 6:29 PM
I did not say they outlawed slavery, I said they did not enshrine it in the Constitution. They hoped it would die a natural death, it would just go away. The slave trade was stopped, but the institution remained intact, obviously. The truth was they wanted the document ratified and knew that if they pushed the issue at the time they would fail to get enough delegates to sign on. They did not forsee cotton barons selling cotton to European manufacturers. They did not forsee the fight over whether or not slavery would exist in new states. That does not mean they enshrined slavery in our Constitution.
It was a lot like the Indian wars. Washington once said that it was inevitable that we would dominate the natives, however, how we did that would dictate whether or not we bore a moral stain.
Terrye on March 31, 2010 at 6:33 PM
With 600,000 Americans dying as a result of the American Civil War, from an American perspective it is the most tragic war we have ever been in regardless of the causes. Every death was the result of “friendly fire” or because of conditions we put ourselves in. (Obviously, there have been wars or civil wars which have been more tragic for the world as a whole or for other regions of the world in particular.)
Ira on March 31, 2010 at 6:35 PM
Lincoln was first a Whig congressman, and then a Republican president. Ron Paul is still a Whig congressman.
Emperor Norton on March 31, 2010 at 6:35 PM
This is true.
Terrye on March 31, 2010 at 6:35 PM
The war was about economic freedom
jp on March 31, 2010 at 6:38 PM
Do you really think that millions of illegally kept slaves would do the same? If your answer is yes, then it’s time to put the bottle down, and seek professional help.
JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2010 at 5:04 PM
Yeah just like those 12 million illegal aliens seek the legal protections of our labor laws. Just like Jim Crow laws never happened.
unseen on March 31, 2010 at 6:39 PM
Ooh, I don’t believe that history supports that “reality”, unseen. There were areas of this country where slavery was illegal before the founding, and the tide of both opinion and law moved against slavery from its inception.
I frankly find Paul’s opinions on this issue quite provocative and interesting. There is much evidence to suggest that slavery was not the sole issue leading to the civil war, and some think it wasn’t even the primary issue.
To claim that he is nuts for questionning the conventional wisdom, after thirty years of revisionist history by the leftists who control all of academic humanities teaching is not logical to me.
Jaibones on March 31, 2010 at 6:45 PM
Ron Paul remains shell shocked from the ‘War of Lunatic Aggression’ still waging between his ears. In this campaign, however, the wrong belligerent is holding ground, defending its position, and even advancing. Reason and sanity are in deep trouble. They lack in all the major areas: logistics, firepower, maneuver and tactics. And worse yet, lunacy seems to have no exit strategy.
It is a quagmire…
anuts on March 31, 2010 at 6:47 PM
In a way they were both and neither. They established a nation founded on such Ideals that the rest of the world never heard of but allowed things, in the very nation they created, that went against those Ideals or in some cases.
They had the courage to Say, but it is one thing to Say and quiet another to Do, especially considering the possible consequences of Doing.
Holger on March 31, 2010 at 6:49 PM
So, you are comparing people who come to this country of their own free will to those brought in chains.
Right.
And if someone tried to enslave those illegals, do you really doubt that they would at least try to seek the help of law enforcement, even if it meant returning to Mexico?
Once again, put the bottle down.
JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2010 at 6:51 PM
The only people who dont think it was the primary issue are nutbags like DiLorenzo and the theocrats at the Leauge of the South.
Squid Shark on March 31, 2010 at 6:54 PM
Look, I don’t like it any more than you do, but those slave owners did have property rights legally recognized in the US. The problem was that those property rights were in direct conflict with the slaves’ right to liberty (and sometimes life). You can resolve that conflict by a) deciding property rights trump the right to liberty, and letting slavery stand; b) deciding liberty trumps property, freeing the slaves, and telling the owners ‘tough luck’ for their lost wealth, or c) decide to do the best to respect both, and end slavery while compensating the slave owners for their lost property.
There is right, and there is wrong, but there is also due process of the law.
Count to 10 on March 31, 2010 at 6:57 PM
The more apt comparison might be with slave labor smuggled in from Asia. Still, such things are done illegally, which is kind of the point.
Count to 10 on March 31, 2010 at 6:59 PM
SS is just messing with me. It’s way too warm in the south for leauge or bobsled.
Jaibones on March 31, 2010 at 7:03 PM
Ron Paul: “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. Besides, the Civil War was to prove that we had a very, very strong centralized federal government and that’s what it did. It rejected the notion that states were a sovereign nation.”
Ron Paul doesn’t know his history. Lincoln supported the government purchase of slaves to send them back to Africa. Of course, the Southern states rejected the idea outright. Lincoln tried to sell the idea to the Union slave states, but they didn’t buy into it, either. However, Lincoln did partially implement the plan over the one domain where he could, the District of Columbia. He set up boards, before which slaves in DC appeared, to assess their price and pay off their masters. Consequently, the already substantial number of freedmen in DC was considerably increased. Many of these men joined the Union Army.
The idea of buying the slaves and sending them back to Africa was never fully implemented, but it was implemented enough to create the nation of Liberia in Africa, populated with freed American slaves.
And Ron Paul turns history on its head by castigating Lincoln in ignorance for not supporting a policy he was actually pushing hard. It makes you wonder what else this buffoon got wrong.
Tantor on March 31, 2010 at 7:04 PM
I don’t believe I can ever understand this. And I’ve tried with thoughtful consideration because of the seemingly wild claim quite like the above. When engaging with someone who humors this position they always revert back to the “States’ Rights” argument. As always my response question is, “States’ right to do what exactly…?”
And as always, that question is met with silence.
anuts on March 31, 2010 at 7:04 PM
Why didn’t the colonists just save up a lot of money and buy America’s freedom from King George?
Why didn’t Bush just buy Saddam’s cooperation and avoid the last 7 years in Iraq?
Pretty idle and useless speculation.
MB4 on March 31, 2010 at 7:06 PM
So now Ron Paul wants to refight and refight and refight the Civil War all over again until what … … time itself comes to an end?
MB4 on March 31, 2010 at 7:10 PM
Tea Party: We need to fight the war that Emperor Obama is conducting against America.
Ron Paul: That’s ridiculous! We need to refight the Civil War that Abraham Lincoln caused over and over and over again for at least the next 150 years; then we can worry about that other minor matter.
MB4 on March 31, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Sorry, I was talking to my wife and typing at the same time.
Squid Shark on March 31, 2010 at 7:14 PM
What a maroon.
- Bugs Bunny
MB4 on March 31, 2010 at 7:15 PM
And that happened well before the Civil War.
Squid Shark on March 31, 2010 at 7:16 PM
Dude, he was asked a question in an interview, and he answered it. If you have a problem with the question, I suggest you talk to RWN.
JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2010 at 7:17 PM
A cop-out? I doubt that those human beings who were slaves thought that.
MB4 on March 31, 2010 at 7:20 PM
My problem is with the answer.
MB4 on March 31, 2010 at 7:22 PM
It would make about as much sense as to say that we should have just bought Hitler off and saved millions of lives.
MB4 on March 31, 2010 at 7:28 PM
Then why don’t you take issue with the answer, rather than accuse RP of trying to refight the Civil War?
I suspect it is because you can’t.
JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2010 at 8:15 PM
Try telling that to the city of New London.
JohnGalt23 on March 31, 2010 at 8:15 PM
Ron Paul and some of his ideas belong in a basket weaving group setting. There are many who qualify for the NASA space exploration programs, but few are called. We have people in congress who speak as though they’ve been launched into earths orbit, yet they continue to be reelected. Don’t get me started on the ones that look like they’re from a different planet.
He represents the great republic of Texas too!
Americannodash on March 31, 2010 at 8:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5