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

[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.....

Lincoln was not a great president.

He is repsponsible for starting the erosion of states rights.

Um....no

Lincoln was dead when the erosion of states rights began under the "Radical Republicans," despite the feeble attempts by Andrew Johnson to preempt them before they could return to congress in December, 1865.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Well the fact is that the federal government would have no constitutional or legal authority to have purchased the slaves. Ron Paul knows this, I'm sure. His point, however, is that if you assume the Civil War was fought over slavery, which it was not which I'm also sure he knows, then would it not be better for the federal government to unconstitutionally purchase the slaves rather than wage an unconstitutional and far more costly war that ended up destroying the south and leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

.

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.

midcan is merely trying to make the point that Ron Paul obviously supports slavery since he would rather the federal government simply pay to free the slaves, as most other civilized countries did during that time, rather than have hundreds of thousands of their own citizens massacred.

 

[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.....

Lincoln was not a great president.

He is repsponsible for starting the erosion of states rights.

Um....no

Lincoln was dead when the erosion of states rights began under the "Radical Republicans," despite the feeble attempts by Andrew Johnson to preempt them before they could return to congress in December, 1865.

Denying the right of secession was a huge erosion of states' rights, and that was certainly done under Lincoln.

 

[Samson]

Lincoln was not a great president.

He is repsponsible for starting the erosion of states rights.

Um....no

Lincoln was dead when the erosion of states rights began under the "Radical Republicans," despite the feeble attempts by Andrew Johnson to preempt them before they could return to congress in December, 1865.

Denying the right of secession was a huge erosion of states' rights, and that was certainly done under Lincoln.

So...you're blaming Lincoln because the Southern states secceeded?

You do understand that Jefferson Davis was the Confederate President, right?

 

[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.

midcan is merely trying to make the point that Ron Paul obviously supports slavery since he would rather the federal government simply pay to free the slaves, as most other civilized countries did during that time, rather than have hundreds of thousands of their own citizens massacred.

No, mid-can was trying to use any opportunity, however inappropriate or ridiculous, to use the phrase "absurdity called libertarianism."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Um....no

Lincoln was dead when the erosion of states rights began under the "Radical Republicans," despite the feeble attempts by Andrew Johnson to preempt them before they could return to congress in December, 1865.

Denying the right of secession was a huge erosion of states' rights, and that was certainly done under Lincoln.

So...you're blaming Lincoln because the Southern states secceeded?

You do understand that Jefferson Davis was the Confederate President, right?

No, I'm blaming Lincoln for not allowing them to secede.

You understand that Jefferson Davis opposed secession, right?

 

[xotoxi]

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.

Don't make fun of the retarded.

 

[Samson]

Denying the right of secession was a huge erosion of states' rights, and that was certainly done under Lincoln.

So...you're blaming Lincoln because the Southern states secceeded?

You do understand that Jefferson Davis was the Confederate President, right?

No, I'm blaming Lincoln for not allowing them to secede.

You understand that Jefferson Davis opposed secession, right?

Yes, but, why would you expect Lincoln to support secession?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So...you're blaming Lincoln because the Southern states secceeded?

You do understand that Jefferson Davis was the Confederate President, right?

No, I'm blaming Lincoln for not allowing them to secede.

You understand that Jefferson Davis opposed secession, right?

Yes, but, why would you expect Lincoln to support secession?

Because the Constitution allows the states to secede, and Lincoln took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

 

[Samson]

No, I'm blaming Lincoln for not allowing them to secede.

You understand that Jefferson Davis opposed secession, right?

Yes, but, why would you expect Lincoln to support secession?

Because the Constitution allows the states to secede, and Lincoln took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

The US Constitution?

Where does it say that a state may leave the union?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, but, why would you expect Lincoln to support secession?

Because the Constitution allows the states to secede, and Lincoln took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

The US Constitution?

Where does it say that a state may leave the union?

Where does it say that a state can't leave the Union? The Constitution must explicitly state the powers of the federal government, and must explicitly state the limitations of the states. The 10th Amendment makes that clear.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[Charles Stucker]

Because the Constitution allows the states to secede, and Lincoln took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

And that is why Lincoln was a terrible president. Because he shattered the constitution.
As for purchasing the slaves, that was NEVER proposed as an option, even though it would have been completely legal and constitutional.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because the Constitution allows the states to secede, and Lincoln took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

And that is why Lincoln was a terrible president. Because he shattered the constitution.
As for purchasing the slaves, that was NEVER proposed as an option, even though it would have been completely legal and constitutional.

I don't know that it would have been constitutional, but it certainly would be better than mass murder.

 

[Samson]

Because the Constitution allows the states to secede, and Lincoln took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

The US Constitution?

Where does it say that a state may leave the union?

Where does it say that a state can't leave the Union? The Constitution must explicitly state the powers of the federal government, and must explicitly state the limitations of the states. The 10th Amendment makes that clear.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

OK, you're right.

 

[Paulie]

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.

midcan is merely trying to make the point that Ron Paul obviously supports slavery since he would rather the federal government simply pay to free the slaves, as most other civilized countries did during that time, rather than have hundreds of thousands of their own citizens massacred.

No, mid-can was trying to use any opportunity, however inappropriate or ridiculous, to use the phrase "absurdity called libertarianism."

Well it is pretty absurd to want to be left alone to make your own personal choices.

 

[Samson]

midcan is merely trying to make the point that Ron Paul obviously supports slavery since he would rather the federal government simply pay to free the slaves, as most other civilized countries did during that time, rather than have hundreds of thousands of their own citizens massacred.

No, mid-can was trying to use any opportunity, however inappropriate or ridiculous, to use the phrase "absurdity called libertarianism."

Well it is pretty absurd to want to be left alone to make your own personal choices.

Quite an outrage!!!,

Particularly if your choice involves wanting to host a prom without Lesbians.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Particularly if your choice involves wanting to host a prom without Lesbians.

You're just upset because now you can't get pictures of the hot lesbos going at it.

 

[Samson]

Particularly if your choice involves wanting to host a prom without Lesbians.

You're just upset because now you can't get pictures of the hot lesbos going at it.

Oh, there's PLENTY of pics w..............



.......Not That I'd Know