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

[US Army Retired]

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.....

 

[Luissa]

This is the best one yet.

 

[AllieBaba]

I am breathless with anticipation to hear your theory on the civil war, Luissa.

 

[Luissa]

I am breathless with anticipation to hear your theory on the civil war, Luissa.

I would love to hear your's, especially since you got all the facts wrong on Kent State.

 

[manu1959]

I am breathless with anticipation to hear your theory on the civil war, Luissa.

the french needed a win....

 

[Luissa]

I am breathless with anticipation to hear your theory on the civil war, Luissa.

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.

 

[Luissa]

I am breathless with anticipation to hear your theory on the civil war, Luissa.

the french needed a win....

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.

 

[manu1959]

I am breathless with anticipation to hear your theory on the civil war, Luissa.

the french needed a win....

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.

someone had to service the southernbells while the menfolk were away

 

[Misty]

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.

 

[Charles Stucker]

I am breathless with anticipation to hear your theory on the civil war, Luissa.

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.

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.

 

[blu]

its what many other countries did

 

[Luissa]

I am breathless with anticipation to hear your theory on the civil war, Luissa.

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.

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.

Why would they want to sell something they had invested so much time and money in?

 

[rdean]

Buying existing slaves doesn't mean they wouldn't have just gone and got more.

The slaves where the backbone of southern economy.

Ron Paul is also a "young earther" and believes evolution is not true, but "magical creation" is a fact.

 

[Luissa]

Buying existing slaves doesn't mean they wouldn't have just gone and got more.

The slaves where the backbone of southern economy.

Ron Paul is also a "young earther" and believes evolution is not true, but "magical creation" is a fact.

They legally would not have been able to get more african slaves. The slave trade was suppose to be shut down by then. Which is another reason why they would have not sold their slaves.

 

[xotoxi]

I am breathless with anticipation to hear your theory on the civil war, Luissa.

I would love to hear your's, especially since you got all the facts wrong on Kent State.

The slaves were just like the terrorist Kent State students and the white people of the South were like the noble people in Waco.

The North was like the FBI in Waco...but not like the National Guard in Kent State.

 

[AllieBaba]

Finally, you see the light.

 

[Gadawg73]

Our way the Confederates stole all of our copper and metals to fight the Yankees. No one forced the Rebels to fight the Yankees. Many Georgians fought on the Union side once they saw what the Confederate war was all about. How would yo0u feel if someone stole all of your corn squeezin aparatus? Power. Lincoln was a weak President. What the hell does that have to do with the Confederacy being a fraud?

 

[Luissa]

I am breathless with anticipation to hear your theory on the civil war, Luissa.

I would love to hear your's, especially since you got all the facts wrong on Kent State.

The slaves were just like the terrorist Kent State students and the white people of the South were like the noble people in Waco.

The North was like the FBI in Waco...but not like the National Guard in Kent State.

Of course not, we had a republican president when Kent State happened, therefore the National Guard was perfect. We had a democrat President during Waco, which some how made the FBI bad.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Buying existing slaves doesn't mean they wouldn't have just gone and got more.

The slaves where the backbone of southern economy.

Ron Paul is also a "young earther" and believes evolution is not true, but "magical creation" is a fact.

WRONG

There was no international trade in slaves in 1860. Islamic trade in unbelievers excepted.

 

[Samson]

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

.....

***added quotes to Paul's answer***

He doesn't see the Civil War as "a good part of our history???!!!"



Obviously the cost of the Civil War was enormous: How do we put a price on just ONE death, much less the number of casulties, not to mention the losses of property, etc?

Lincoln tried almost everything, including letting the sessionists know that the Union would NOT BE THE FIRST TO ATTACK. Nonetheless the Confederates attacked Ft Sumter.

It is an interesting conjecture to imagine southern states agreeing to sell slaves, but, neither they, or the North, expected the war to be very long, or terribly bloody. Once it began, there was no turning back.