Ron Paul: Why didn’t the north just buy the south’s slaves and free them that way?

Discussion in 'Education' started by US Army Retired, Mar 31, 2010.

  1. US Army Retired
    Offline

    US Army Retired BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    571
    Thanks Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Ratings:
    +108
    Lol......This ought to ruffle some feathers. Ron Paul is an economic idiot. As the supply dwindles, the prices would have escaladed. I wonder what price he thinks they should have paid for them?

    Hot Air Headlines 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.....
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2010
  2. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    This is the best one yet. :lol:
     
  3. AllieBaba
    Offline

    AllieBaba BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    33,778
    Thanks Received:
    3,648
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +3,650
    I am breathless with anticipation to hear your theory on the civil war, Luissa.
     
  4. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    I would love to hear your's, especially since you got all the facts wrong on Kent State.
     
  5. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    the french needed a win....
     
  6. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    But since you asked, do you really think the south would have gave up their slaves? They could work in the summers, withstanding the heat, most were also immune to malaria, and they were cheap. There is no way the south would have sold their slaves, most of their economy was based on slave labor.
     
  7. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    :eusa_shhh: About the french!

    Last year I went a listened to a professor from some souther college talk about th decision the south made not to use slaves as soldiers. There is no way the south would have give their slaves to the north.
     
  8. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    someone had to service the southernbells while the menfolk were away
     
  9. Misty
    Offline

    Misty Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    7,137
    Thanks Received:
    1,897
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,308
    The south didn't want to sell their slaves. They wanted a cheap source of labor
    So that Algore's family could get mega rich off tobacco. :(
     
  10. Charles Stucker
    Offline

    Charles Stucker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,071
    Thanks Received:
    225
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +225
    Actually many states were moving toward a free society. Manumission had become common in wills, so much so that special laws were passed to cover the topic. In fact, as shown by the post civil war era, it was more economical to hire free workers and pay them a pittance than to own slaves.

    Slavery is generally only profitable when there exists a labor shortage. When there is a surplus, hiring labor is far cheaper than owning slaves.

    Labor only needs be paid on the days they work. Slaves must be fed, housed, clothed and given care all the time, even the off season.

    There is no capital investment in labor. Slaves must be purchased, or raised from infancy - both cost money.

    Lazy laborers can be dismissed. Lazy slaves can only be whipped.

    A laborer who runs away takes no capital value with him. A slave who runs away costs money.

    Only the most infantile analysis suggests slavery is universally profitable.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page