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

[blu]

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?

it was already on it way out, some people here have already talked about the new influx of cheap labor as well as technological advances. most of the owners would have loved to get a decent sum of money per slave and be done with it.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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.....

Seriously, could you start putting your threads in the correct forum. We are tired of moving your shit around.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.....

So it worked in plenty of other countries, but it couldn't have worked here?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Importing slaves was illegal.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.....

Ok lets take it slowly shall we? Some of the Southern States had strict laws in place that PREVENTED one from EVER freeing their slaves. But ignoring that impediment, explain carefully WHY the Southern folk that NEEDED the slaves to work the fields would EVER sell them no matter the price? Who would work the fields? Who would run the House?

If you suggest that the North was unified in freeing the slaves you would be wrong. Further even those wanting to free them were for the most part racist and would not want them living near them. So the idea that one could relocate all the blacks to the North fails miserably.

BUT the biggest impediment to your question is the fact that while the South fought the war over slavery the North fought it over Union. Lincoln only freed the slaves as a bargaining chip to keep England and France out of the War.

He believed they should be free but was not ever going to free them as President if there had been no war. For one he had no mandate to do so.

 

[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.....

Ok lets take it slowly shall we? Some of the Southern States had strict laws in place that PREVENTED one from EVER freeing their slaves. But ignoring that impediment, explain carefully WHY the Southern folk that NEEDED the slaves to work the fields would EVER sell them no matter the price? Who would work the fields? Who would run the House?

If you suggest that the North was unified in freeing the slaves you would be wrong. Further even those wanting to free them were for the most part racist and would not want them living near them. So the idea that one could relocate all the blacks to the North fails miserably.

BUT the biggest impediment to your question is the fact that while the South fought the war over slavery the North fought it over Union. Lincoln only freed the slaves as a bargaining chip to keep England and France out of the War.

He believed they should be free but was not ever going to free them as President if there had been no war. For one he had no mandate to do so.

Lincoln freed the slaves not "Only as a Bargaining Chip" with England and France (if this had anything at all to do with the decision). He proclaimed emancipation hoping slave insurrections would weaken the south, and end the war more quickly. In a way, it worked.

After Lincoln's Emancipation Proclaimation, the south passed a law allowing anyone holding 20+ slaves to remain out of the army and keeping 1:20 ratios, at home, "protecting their property." The real effect wasn't just to decrease southern ranks, but to demoralise: most confederate ranks saw all the rich kids go home.

It became, "A rich man's war, and a poor man's fight."

 

[blu]

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.....

Ok lets take it slowly shall we? Some of the Southern States had strict laws in place that PREVENTED one from EVER freeing their slaves. But ignoring that impediment, explain carefully WHY the Southern folk that NEEDED the slaves to work the fields would EVER sell them no matter the price? Who would work the fields? Who would run the House?

If you suggest that the North was unified in freeing the slaves you would be wrong. Further even those wanting to free them were for the most part racist and would not want them living near them. So the idea that one could relocate all the blacks to the North fails miserably.

BUT the biggest impediment to your question is the fact that while the South fought the war over slavery the North fought it over Union. Lincoln only freed the slaves as a bargaining chip to keep England and France out of the War.

He believed they should be free but was not ever going to free them as President if there had been no war. For one he had no mandate to do so.

they were already being outpriced by cheap labor

 

[blu]

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.....

Ok lets take it slowly shall we? Some of the Southern States had strict laws in place that PREVENTED one from EVER freeing their slaves. But ignoring that impediment, explain carefully WHY the Southern folk that NEEDED the slaves to work the fields would EVER sell them no matter the price? Who would work the fields? Who would run the House?

If you suggest that the North was unified in freeing the slaves you would be wrong. Further even those wanting to free them were for the most part racist and would not want them living near them. So the idea that one could relocate all the blacks to the North fails miserably.

BUT the biggest impediment to your question is the fact that while the South fought the war over slavery the North fought it over Union. Lincoln only freed the slaves as a bargaining chip to keep England and France out of the War.

He believed they should be free but was not ever going to free them as President if there had been no war. For one he had no mandate to do so.

Lincoln freed the slaves not "Only as a Bargaining Chip" with England and France (if this had anything at all to do with the decision). He proclaimed emancipation hoping slave insurrections would weaken the south, and end the war more quickly. In a way, it worked.

After Lincoln's Emancipation Proclaimation, the south passed a law allowing anyone holding 20+ slaves to remain out of the army and keeping 1:20 ratios, at home, "protecting their property." The real effect wasn't just to decrease southern ranks, but to demoralise: most confederate ranks saw all the rich kids go home.

It became, "A rich man's war, and a poor man's fight."

thats how it is always is and will be. how many people that voted for the iraq war sent family members there. how many of bush and cheneys relatives had to die/fight for the millions the familys made?

 

[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.....

Ok lets take it slowly shall we? Some of the Southern States had strict laws in place that PREVENTED one from EVER freeing their slaves. But ignoring that impediment, explain carefully WHY the Southern folk that NEEDED the slaves to work the fields would EVER sell them no matter the price? Who would work the fields? Who would run the House?

If you suggest that the North was unified in freeing the slaves you would be wrong. Further even those wanting to free them were for the most part racist and would not want them living near them. So the idea that one could relocate all the blacks to the North fails miserably.

BUT the biggest impediment to your question is the fact that while the South fought the war over slavery the North fought it over Union. Lincoln only freed the slaves as a bargaining chip to keep England and France out of the War.

He believed they should be free but was not ever going to free them as President if there had been no war. For one he had no mandate to do so.

they were already being outpriced by cheap labor

The price of slaves was directly related to the price of cotton, not alternative labor sources.

Slavery was being made obsolete with technology.

Still, there was nothing like having a bright Octoroon Woman to amuse yourself with after a hard day of drinking mint juleps.

 

[Samson]

Ok lets take it slowly shall we? Some of the Southern States had strict laws in place that PREVENTED one from EVER freeing their slaves. But ignoring that impediment, explain carefully WHY the Southern folk that NEEDED the slaves to work the fields would EVER sell them no matter the price? Who would work the fields? Who would run the House?

If you suggest that the North was unified in freeing the slaves you would be wrong. Further even those wanting to free them were for the most part racist and would not want them living near them. So the idea that one could relocate all the blacks to the North fails miserably.

BUT the biggest impediment to your question is the fact that while the South fought the war over slavery the North fought it over Union. Lincoln only freed the slaves as a bargaining chip to keep England and France out of the War.

He believed they should be free but was not ever going to free them as President if there had been no war. For one he had no mandate to do so.

Lincoln freed the slaves not "Only as a Bargaining Chip" with England and France (if this had anything at all to do with the decision). He proclaimed emancipation hoping slave insurrections would weaken the south, and end the war more quickly. In a way, it worked.

After Lincoln's Emancipation Proclaimation, the south passed a law allowing anyone holding 20+ slaves to remain out of the army and keeping 1:20 ratios, at home, "protecting their property." The real effect wasn't just to decrease southern ranks, but to demoralise: most confederate ranks saw all the rich kids go home.

It became, "A rich man's war, and a poor man's fight."

thats how it is always is and will be. how many people that voted for the iraq war sent family members there. how many of bush and cheneys relatives had to die/fight for the millions the familys made?

Could you possibly focus on the goddamn thread for a minute without becomming hysterical about BUSHCHENEYHALLIBURTON?

For christssakes.

 

[Fenris Wolf]

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?

it was already on it way out, some people here have already talked about the new influx of cheap labor as well as technological advances. most of the owners would have loved to get a decent sum of money per slave and be done with it.

I agree with blu here.
The average cost of a slave in today's monetary value would translate into roughly $50,000 a head plus the cost of housing and feeding, hardly cheap labor. It certainly would have to be of substantial value in their labor to make a worthwhile venture in owning African slaves. I'm sure there was some abuse going on by slave owners, but the stereotype that this was rampant among them is incorrect. Anybody that would invest so much money and resources into something on that scale would have been silly to purposely cause physical harm or demoralization.
There was a great influx of Irish immigrants at the time because of the potato famine, but most of them stayed in the north where there was more industrial based labor to do. One of the reasons the north despised slavery was because they viewed it as a threat to their job security, with the immigrants causing a population explosion. They and the immigrants wanted it ended so there would be a greater chance of employment and with more demand for laborers, with slaves out of the picture, the greater the wage for their services.
What Ron Paul was inferring to, was the 5th amendment of the constitution, mainly the part about no citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. The U.S. government more or less came in and seized many individual's property without the benefit of a trial, which is technically illegal. Abe Lincoln being called the greatest president of our time is purely subjective and a matter of personal opinion, one which I disagree. There is still a good deal of bitterness and hardship in the south to this day because of the actions sanctioned by President Lincoln. I'm not necessarily condoning all the actions the Confederacy took, but the Union should have taken different concessions when the Confederacy surrendered.

 

[Samson]

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?

it was already on it way out, some people here have already talked about the new influx of cheap labor as well as technological advances. most of the owners would have loved to get a decent sum of money per slave and be done with it.

This makes several absurd assumptions:

1. That the North would offer a "decent sum."
2. That the South believed they would lose the war
3. That the North believed the war would be long, bloody, and costly.

 

[Modbert]

It's statements like these which is why I'll never vote for Ron Paul, ever.

 

[Modbert]

Importing slaves was illegal.

So was selling slaves by 1808. But if Ron Paul knew his facts, he'd know his entire idea couldn't work because of that.

 

[midcan5]

In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

If I could see myself young, the altar boy on Good Friday - today we discuss presidents and the civil war with a bit grand ironic humor throw in for good measure.

Surely you can't pick on Ron for sticking to the absurdity called libertarianism. It follows that all things can be bought and sold in their world. Wives and husbands too I guess.

FDR was the greatest, no doubt, personally I judge presidents by how they tackled the tough issues. Lincoln too was great in that respect for me. LBJ could have been great except Nam did him in. These wars may destroy any greatness Obama possesses as well. But that story still unfolds.

By the way in my opinion Reagan was the worst in contemporary time and the founders had a sort of blank slate so good for them that it worked and we thank them for our liberal constitutional republic.

 

[blu]

In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

If I could see myself young, the altar boy on Good Friday - today we discuss presidents and the civil war with a bit grand ironic humor throw in for good measure.

Surely you can't pick on Ron for sticking to the absurdity called libertarianism. It follows that all things can be bought and sold in their world. Wives and husbands too I guess.

FDR was the greatest, no doubt, personally I judge presidents by how they tackled the tough issues. Lincoln too was great in that respect for me. LBJ could have been great except Nam did him in. These wars may destroy any greatness Obama possesses as well. But that story still unfolds.

By the way in my opinion Reagan was the worst in contemporary time and the founders had a sort of blank slate so good for them that it worked and we thank them for our liberal constitutional republic.

other countries bought them to end it.

 

[Charles Stucker]

In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

If I could see myself young, the altar boy on Good Friday - today we discuss presidents and the civil war with a bit grand ironic humor throw in for good measure.

Surely you can't pick on Ron for sticking to the absurdity called libertarianism. It follows that all things can be bought and sold in their world. Wives and husbands too I guess.

FDR was the greatest, no doubt, personally I judge presidents by how they tackled the tough issues. Lincoln too was great in that respect for me. LBJ could have been great except Nam did him in. These wars may destroy any greatness Obama possesses as well. But that story still unfolds.

By the way in my opinion Reagan was the worst in contemporary time and the founders had a sort of blank slate so good for them that it worked and we thank them for our liberal constitutional republic.

How can you like the constitution and Lincoln/FDR?
Lincoln and FDR set about destroying constitutional checks against excessive federal power.
Thus both are villains of the blackest sort.

 

[Samson]

.

Surely you can't pick on Ron for sticking to the absurdity called libertarianism. It follows that all things can be bought and sold in their world. Wives and husbands too I guess.

Your inductive reasoning skills are quite astonishing:

Ron Paul, a human, can be male, therefore, ALL cats must be male.


....

Ron Paul, a republican, can be absurd, therefore ALL libertarianism is absurd.

 

[Defiant1]

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.....

Lincoln was not a great president.

He is repsponsible for starting the erosion of states rights.

 

[Bern80]

Anyone have any more context to this quote of Paul's than what was given? This is purely a guess on my part, but I'm thinking if a libertarian like Paul asked it, it was probaby to prove the point that Lincoln and the North really weren't fighting the civil war in order to end slavery.