Ron Paul - Lincoln should've just bought the slaves and freed them.

[Swede]

Not an April fools joke.


snip

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.

http://rightwingnews.com/2010/03/an-interview-with-ron-paul/

[bluestateguy]

1. Some people proposed that

But by 1860 the Southern hotheads wouldn't go for it.

[Better Today]

2. Poor Ron Paul, doesn't he realize what the slave owners would've done with the money

they had recieved? . . . They'd have simply bought newer, younger, cheaper slaves.

[mcollins]

9. Not through the blockade.

Not to mention who would have worked the fields while a good majority of the southern men were off fighting the war.

A thought out solution with no thinking to it.

[harkadog]

33. No. The Congress prohibited the importation of new slaves after 1808.

The proposal would have worked.

[Statistical]

73. The sad thing is it would have.

War is generally the worst (but easiest) solution to any problem.

It is unlikely Lincoln could ever convince non-slave owners to pay for slaves though despite hindsight showing us it would have been cheaper, faster, resulted in less economic damages, and prevented death of thousands.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. He underestimates the $$$ cost but it is not a laughable idea

It was assumed at the time that any way of ending slavery (short of war) would involve compensating former slave-holders for the loss of 'property'

[The Northerner]

11. +1

[roguevalley]

18. it wouldn't have changed their need for cheap labor. of course,

share cropping was legal slavery but it wouldn't have appeased those dullards.

[krabigirl]

39. I agree.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Obviously he never learned that basically everybody in the confederate army didn't own slaves

Slavery as an institution was far bigger than whatever monetary value the slave-owners placed on their slaves.

[Canuckistanian]

5. Then they still would have been considered chattel

And the slave owners would just import more slaves from Africa.

No, they needed to be declared free citizens.

[Swede]

6. Exactly

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Importing slaves was outlawed by that point

[glowing]

12. Actually, at that time, "supposedly" there was a law against any new slaves from

another country being imported... At that time why bother, there were enough slaves make baby slaves and there wouldn't be a language barrier issue.

[Toucano]

20. Importation of slaves was banned Jan. 01, 1808

on the first day congress could enact it under the constitutional compromises.

on edit:

Sorry I didn't read down enough to see that people had already addressed this.

[Canuckistanian]

53. Banning slave importation still doesn't solve slavery

The Emancipation Proclamation was needed to finally end the LEGAL definition of "ownership" of another human being.

Without that, slavery would have continued, albeit on a smaller, more clandestine scale, even WITH the Union win.

[Toucano]

64. I never said it did. But you said, "...the slave owners would just import more slaves from Africa."

Which, in 1860, was not possible.

[harkadog]

34. Nope. Wouldn't have happened.

Congress banned importing of new slaves after 1808.

[YOY]

8. Andrew fucking Ryan...

n.t.

[Riverman]

10. Yes, a Republican Policy to have the tax payers and poor pay

for a war fought to strengthen a centralized federal government, as well as enrich the war profiteers. The Rockefellers got started by the old man selling broken rifles to the Army in the Civil War, as an example. Kinda of sounds like now! Who profits from foreign wars?

And, even the Libertarians like Ron Paul, want the taxpayers to cover the costs of the social and environmental degradation produced by the private sector! What a Country!

[verges]

44. Do you have a link for that info on Rokefellers?

That statement doesn't tally with what I have understood.

[DevonRex]

13. So he thinks slave owners would have sold them if they knew they couldn't buy any more?

Hell no, they would NOT have. They WANTED slave labor. They went to WAR because they wanted slave labor that badly.

[The Genealogist]

26. I was wondering the same thing...

I can hardly imagine slave owners lining up and saying, "I do declare, Mr Lincoln, what a fantastic idea to take away all mah forced labor! I didn't need mah lil ole plantation anyhow!"

[DevonRex]

56. You nailed it.

They were firm in their belief that they had to have slaves in order to run their plantations and "save their way of life."

Your "quote" was dead on and amusing, too. :) and :hi:

[DavidDvorkin]

14. He would have had to settle them all in the North

Which would not have gone over at all.

[struggle4progress]

15. It's always good to hear Ron's solutions to the problems of the mid-19th century

so if I ever find myself in the mid-19th century, I'll know what Ron would do

[Kaleva]

16. Duzy!

[WilliamPitt]

19. He shoots. He scores.

:toast:

[Toucano]

22. Too funny!

Duzy nomination seconded.

[blondeatlast]

51. LOL! nt

[Canuckistanian]

52. Good point!

"Vote Ron Paul, 2012. He'll solve that pesky slavery problem once and for all!"

[Union Yes]

17. RP is a fucking racist idiot. knr for exposure.

People need to know what that racist right wing nut stands for.

[Juche]

21. It works in Britian

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/antislavery.html

After 1830 when the mood of the nation changed in favour of a variety of types of reform, the antislavery campaign gathered momentum. In 1833 Wilberforce's efforts were finally rewarded when the Abolition of Slavery Act was passed. Wilberforce, on his death-bed, was informed of the passing of the Act in the nick of time. The main terms of the Act were:

* all slaves under the age of six were to be freed immediately
* slaves over the age of six were to remain as part slave and part free for a further four years. In that time they would have to be paid a wage for the work they did in the quarter of the week when they were "free"
* the government was to provide £20 million in compensation to the slave-owners who had lost their "property."

In the West Indies the economic results of the Act were disastrous. The islands depended on the sugar trade which in turn depended on slave labour. Ultimately, the planters were unable to make the West Indies the thriving centres of trade which they had been in the eighteenth century. However, a moral victory had been won and the 1833 Act marked the beginning of the end of slavery in the New World


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#Great_Britain

They abolished importing slaves in 1807, then abolished it totally in 1834.

[The Northerner]

27. +1

[cali]

29. and you think that's analogous

to the situation in the Southern States.

Giant fail.

[Juche]

31. I don't know

My point was that it can work. Britain made slavery illegal through legislation and compensation around the same time we did, so it is not some radical idea.

[cali]

32. Britain didn't have the kind of institutionalized slavery that the Southern States did

and their economy was in now way dependent upon slave labour.

[Karmadillo]

41. But the British Empire had institutionalized slavery, didn't it?

nt

[cali]

43. not where the economy was dependent upon it.

it's a bad comparison. it doesn't hold up to even casual scrutiny.

[Karmadillo]

47. The sugar plantations in the British Caribbean weren't dependent on slavery?

nt

[LeftishBrit]

70. Fair point..

but by the time slavery was abolished, it was no longer a key aspect in most of the British Empire (it remained so in the Caribbaean for longest). Plus, the way that the colonialists enabled themselves to exploit the 'natives' in many places, they hardly needed actual slaves.

[LeftishBrit]

68. Very different situation

Some wealthy British people owned slaves; but slavery was never a key part of the economy in the way that it was in the southern states of America. So it was much easier to abolish here.

[LostInAnomie]

23. Then, Lincoln would have had a ton of dip-shits like Paul bitching about...

... the federal government overstepping its Constitutional limitations.

I can hear them now: "Show me where in the Constitution it says the Federal government can buy slaves!!", "This is governmental overreach! They're trying to crush free-enterprise!!", "Yet another social program from that Illinois liberal!!"

Paul might also want to look into who actually fired the first shot.

[joeybee12]

24. Yeah, and with mass transit everywhere in the South, it'd be pretty easy to figure out

where all the slaves were...could have rounded them up in a week, maybe less.

:sarcasm:

[Cleita]

25. He doesn't think much past his ten fingers, does he?

What if Lincoln had? It wouldn't have ended slavery because the law there saying it's okay would still be on the books.

[harkadog]

35. Just the opposite.

It would have ended slavery because there would be no more new slaves. Congress had banned the importation of slaves decades before.

[Cleita]

38. You are naive. They would have found another source, maybe orphans

or widows.

[harkadog]

40. Now you are just being silly.

Or is it your lame attempt at an April fools joke? Try it somewhere else.

[DevonRex]

65. They would simply have refused to sell them to him. End of story. nt

[KonaKane]

28. States "sovereign nations"??

Care to show me, Mr. Paul, where in the US Constitution it designates the states as "sovereign nations"?

[JI7]

30. a case of someone who is so intelligent being totally ignorant

of how different people are treated differently by society and how that has a lot to do with what they are able to achieve in life.

how would this prevent people from bringing in more people to sell into slavery ?

[harkadog]

36. Congress had banned it in 1808.

That wasn't any issue by the time of the Civil War.

[JI7]

45. can't they bring them in illegally ?

and what if someone didn't want to "sell" them for freedom. or there might be disputes about someone's status.

[harkadog]

48. Bring them in illegally from where?

The trans-Atlantic slave trade had gone out of existence because of lack of demand. Congress had the power to pass legislation to compel the sale of the slaves. Would there be disputes as to price and status? Sure. But it would have been worth the lives of 600,000 and the country not being torn apart.

[Thothmes]

54. Congress did not have that authority.

Congress did not have the power to pass legislation concerning sale of or any other type of regulation of slavery. This was the result of the Dred Scott vs. Stanford decision by the SCOTUS in 1857.

[harkadog]

69. Of course they did.

There is a provision for it in the Constitution. They just couldn't do it before 1808. This issue is not even debated by either historians or legal experts. The Dred Scott decision had nothing to do with the importation of slaves.

[kenny blankenship]

60. Not true. It was suppressed by the British, and banned by US law, however it went on illegally

The last recorded slave ship to land on American soil was the Clotilde, which in 1859 illegally smuggled a number of Africans into the town of Mobile, Alabama.<81>

Although the slave trade had become illegal, slavery remained a reality in British colonies. Wilberforce himself was privately convinced that the institution of slavery should be entirely abolished, but understood that there was little political will for emancipation. In parliament, the Emancipation Bill gathered support and received its final commons reading on 26 July 1833. Slavery would be abolished, but the planters would be heavily compensated, and slaves on plantations were required to remain as slaves on the plantations for a further six years. Thank God, said William Wilberforce, that I have lived to witness a day in which England is willing to give twenty millions sterling for the Abolition of Slavery. After several years of peaceful protests, full emancipation for all was legally granted in Trinidad ahead of schedule on 1 August, 1838, making it the first British colony with slaves to completely abolish slavery.<84>

The last country to ban the Atlantic slave trade was Brazil in 1831. However, a vibrant illegal trade continued to ship large numbers of enslaved people to Brazil and also to Cuba until the 1860s, when British enforcement and further diplomacy finally ended the Atlantic trade.
-=-=-

Where would they come from? From Brazil and the Caribbean.

[harkadog]

71. You are playing at the edges.

Yes anything that is illegal can be brought into any country. The question is would it be efficient for a major economy. The answer is no. The number would have been too small.

[kenny blankenship]

72. You said the atlantic slave trade had gone out of existence due to lack of demand

that is flatly false.

[harkadog]

74. I was correct.

Again you play at the edges and try and pretend you are in the middle. It had effectively gone out of business. You can still find moonshine stills in parts of this country. Does that mean they could supply the alcohol industry here?

[kenny blankenship]

75. You asked, rhetorically, "Where are they going to get them?" And you got an answer:

from Cuba and Brazil, and the sources that continued to supply slaves to Cuba and Brazil.
You pooh-pooh the possible volume of the illicit slave trade to the Southern US in the face of an emancipation law, but you ignore the fact that the slaveowners in question were willing to go to war and risk everything they had, not just in reaction to abolition of slavery, but to the mere threat of abolition in the territories and the generationally remote threat that one day there would be sufficient free-state representation in the Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment banning slavery and send it to the states for ratification. Declaring their slaves emancipated with compensation to their former "owners" would have hardly begun to satisfy the southern slaveocracy. A measure like that by itself would provoke them to treason and war. They would flout such a ban with pleasure.

[harkadog]

77. Assuming they stayed in the Union and that is the assumption

of this proposal they would have had to create their own navy and shipping fleet. That is just not realistic. Would the proposal have worked? I don't know but it would have been worth a try. The civil war lead eventually to divisiveness and many RW themes and issues that we still deal with today.

[upi402]

37. ...and drive up prices, so they'd run and get more from Africa

Even basic supply and demand escapes Libertarians!

[Ikonoklast]

67. Guess what Ron and his Libertarian asshole buddies would have been

doing if this was implemented?



He would be making a fortune running new slaves to the South.

After all, who pays attention to things like 'Federal Laws'?

Not the Libertarians. They want to ignore whatever they don't like.

[Capitalocracy]

42. That's so socialist. What, is the gov. in the slave trading business?

Big government wants to buy up all the slaves. Typical. Why don't they just start a war? That's always an acceptable expenditure.

But seriously, if Lincoln had bought all the slaves, how would that have prevented them from using the money to turn around and buy more if it remained legal, or going to war anyway if it wasn't? Ridiculous. Ron Paul says some great things about not going to war and preserving the rule of law, but the other half of what comes out of his mouth is just insane.

[ecstatic]

46. Has Dennis Kucinich commented on this yet?

:shrug:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

49. Hampton Roads Peace Conference-Lincoln offered to compensate some slave owners for a percentage of

the loss of their "property".

Confederates said "No Thanks."

[SemiCharmedQuark]

50. The Declarations of Secession don't claim that the war is about losing property.

They specifically say the war is about the institution of slavery. This is stated again and again and again among the Confederate officials. They would not have taken the compensation if they could not get more slaves.

This is like saying that Britain should have just repealed the stamp tax and avoided the Revolutionary War.

[jonathan_seer]

55. The laws that made slavery legal render his comment pure idiocy - here's why.

This sort of "seemingly common sense, but actually inane and stupid" comments are a product of the libertarian technique of over-simplifying complex social issues by leaving out, ignoring the facts that make their suggestion totally idiotic.

The fact that Importation was outlawed in 1808 DOES NOT EQUATE with making slavery illegal.

In a Ron Paul scenario that would just result in a "resource scarcity" which would drive the price of slaves up dramatically, resulting in the government having to pay a premium price to enact the inane RP plan.

Slavery eliminated the "humanity" of the slaves "LEGALLY" not just spiritually.

Slaves were PROPERTY.

PROPERTY does NOT HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS.

The US buying and freeing the slaves as RP suggest would be more akin to "abandoning your property" in the public square rather than bestowing a "legal state of humanity" on a former slave.

Dramatic changes in the constitution and over 100 years of struggle followed before the slaves that the civil war freed actually saw that sort of change occur not only in the law but the social norms of citizens.

As long as slavery was legal, buying up the slaves and "freeing them" wouldn't make them free.

Human Rights applied to "Free white men" in those days.

Even worse, during those days, constitutionally slaves were counted as a fraction of a person.

So to assume that the Slaves would actually enjoy a "state of freedom" equal to the free white man is ludicrous.

Such freedom would ONLY BE "freedom from ownership."

Such a state does NOT preclude being reclaimed, re-enslaved.

Remember "slaves were property" NOT accorded rights assumed for White men of those days.

As propery their state of being "freed from ownership" would be far more similar to a car whose owner vanished and left it on the street with keys in the ignition waiting for the first person to realize the car was abandoned and take it.

And that would have happened had such a lunatic idea like RP's been enacted as many a white free man swooped down on the "freed slaves" to "claim the abandoned property" as their own.

It seems ludicrous to anyone with a rigid modern mindset reflecting today's notions of liberty and justice, but the civil war times had a dramatically different sense of those things.

And understanding the foolishness behind RP's suggestion requires a clear understanding of "property" vs. "person" and the fact that "laws determine this" NOT some nebulous notion of "superior rights of humankind." Without laws to encode them, without a society to enforce those codes such rights are meaningless.

Freed slaves would quickly be recycled into the system as "new slaves" claimed by new owners who recognized that as "property" NOT "human beings" under law, the relinquishing of "ownership" via purchase did NOT embue the former slave with a equivalent sense of "personhood" the law assumed for white slave owners.

[kenny blankenship]

57. Jeeezus what an idiot. Hey, Ron, what do you think slaveowners would do with all that money?

Import some new slaves, maybe?

We didn't have a civil war because Lincoln wanted to free the slaves. We had a civil war because some people thought Lincoln would free the slaves; and that if he didn't, the 1860 election nevertheless heralded a power shift in the Congress which would put the country on the expressway to abolition. So they decided to take all their marbles and slaves and secede from the country. Seizing US armories that were federal property was one thing, but then they went and fired on the US Army garrison at Fort Sumter. The war was on from the moment forward. None of that was Lincoln's fault, but solely the fault of hotheaded anti-gummint types. All of it.

[Blue_Tires]

58. So much wrong with this I wouldn't know where to start...

For starters, does he honestly think the slaveowner and his 5 kids would start putting in 18-hour days on their 1000 acres??

I have no idea what has happened to critical thought in this country...I thought things would get a little better after Bush left, but the Backs, Palins, and Pauls of the political world are making us ALL dumber...

[LanternWaste]

59. I don't think that would have solved...

I don't think that would have solved the issue of territories becoming free or slave states, which was in large part, the catalyst for the conflict.

[Paladin]

61. Ron Paul Isn't Worthy EnoughTo Utter Lincoln's Name........ (n/t)

[blindpig]

62. Ron Paul never saw 'property' that he didn't like

Libertarian scumbag that he is. Those slavers got off way too light, all of their property except personal moveables should have been expropriated and given to the slaves, land, buildings, implements, livestock, the works.

[Orsino]

63. You can't buy what isn't property. n/t

[LLStarks]

66. Wouldn't Ron Paul's cost-benefit analysis suggest that shirking ideal was worth it? nt

[LeftinOH]

76. Spending taxpayer money? That would have NOT gone over well with the public -

...just imagine what his proposal would have been:

"My fellow Americans-I propose the Federal Govt spends money buying all the slaves in order to avoid a bloody four-year conflict that will leave thousands dead and shatter the economy of the South for generations." He probably would have been impeached. Furthermore, there were likely many Northerners who would not have appreciated seeing slave owners financially compensated for doing something that was considered (at least by many Northerners) to be highly immoral in the first place (owning slaves).

Ron Paul is an idiot.