Time to laugh and pee your pants at more ron paul insanity!!!!

[Javaman]

http://quickcommentary.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-versus-lincoln-cult.html

[TornadoTN]

1. More of the same from Paul: "THE FREEMARKET WILL CURE ALL ILLS"

*sigh* It's like listening to a mental patient that won't stop chanting the same inane blather over and over again.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. So Paul wanted the government to buy the slaves and release them.

And what, keep doing this over and over again, since slavery would still essentially be legal?

Good plan, Ron!

[northzax]

5. the idea, I believe

since the slave trade was essentially banned (at least importation) in the 1840's, I think, was to treat slaves as property and have a takings bill. under Takings bills, anytime the government reduces the value of your property (real or percieved) you have to be compensated. So the idea would be to ban the creation of new slaves, ban the selling of slaves (or at least tax it highly) and offer slaveowners compensation for their current slaves.

it is, basically, what happened in many other places (like English colonies). Of course, it shows an absurdly simplistic and wrong view of American history (remember folks, the South started it with the succession of South Carolina BEFORE Lincoln even took office; plus, this wasn't about ending slavery, it was about the North opposing the expansion of slavery into the new territories.) but hey, what are minor details like this to Ron Paul?

[Spinzonner]

12. Should not the Southern Slave owners then be required

to take such money and compensate the ex-slaves for the loss of their freedom which was their property and not the slave-owners' ?

[northzax]

19. no, because freedom is not compensatable

only property has value, not people or time. (not my idea, the takings idea)

[nealmhughes]

18. The US slave trade from overseas was banned on the first day of January 1808,

the Constitution provided for the ability for the banning of the "importation of certain persons" in 1808 and the Enabling Act passed and was signed.

France came with the Revolution, both the trade and slavery. England and its colonies later. Spain and Portugal and Brazil later still. The last slaves in Brazil were freed in 1888 by Dom Pedro II. Most were already emancipated by that date.

The plantation owners finally realized that it was cheaper to keep neo-serfs with whom one had to pay only a slight salary at the times when they worked than to actually feed, house, and provide medical care for slaves. Hell, you could even charge them usury for the "loans" that tided the workers over from their pay to the next one and charge outrageous rents, force workers to rent from the landowners and even buy food at their own stores!

In short, not much changed in the SE USA or the Brazilian cane fields or in Cuba, PR, or the DR for many, many years after nominal emancipation unless one had the good luck to escape to economic and humanistic exile to a city and had a trade to fall back upon.

[Rageneau]

8. So how come slavery isn't still legal in the countries who did what Paul suggests?

Where are the English slaves? They ceased to exist, of course. Half of the job is buy the slaves out of bondage. The other half is to to immediately outlaw slavery.

It's an unfortunate comparison, but Paul is suggesting someting like Eminent Domain, i.e. we take your property, but we pay you a fair price for it.

[Drunken Irishman]

10. What we would've seen was a split in nations.

The Civil War was more than just about slavery and if Paul were president, he would have let the south split and God knows what impact that would've had on this country's history.

I don't think you can compare the United States to England, since the United States didn't look like it was MOVING toward accepting slavery. Then there is the fact that even after the Civil War, the United States still lagged behind many nations when it came to racial acceptance, especially in the south -- which probably wouldn't have embraced just making slavery illegal.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Where do you begin?

If ignorance were acting talent, Paul would get an Oscar and an Emmy!

Lincoln DIDN'T start the Civil War; the fire eaters of South Carolina did. And the "commentary" after the snippet---obviously not Lincoln scholars.

[LakeSamish706]

4. I'm guessing by the feed back to this thread that most of you never...

even read the entire article....

"There is a large body of scholarly work to back up Paul’s assertion that the Civil War was not necessary to end slavery in the United States. "

The real issue as Lincoln stated himself, was not to end slavery but to save the Union.... Many Southern states were suceeding from the Union and the entire country was at risk because of this.

[Javaman]

7. And your point is? nt

[LakeSamish706]

9. My point was made in my post. n/t

[Javaman]

17. most of the southern states succeeded from the union AFTER the

south fired on fort sumter.

The issue was not just preserving the union the issue was the fact that the southern states didn't like the feds interfering in states rights. but the right the southern states wanted no interference was the the issue of slavery.

So the succession of the various states were due mostly in part of their willingness to put the ownership of another human being over the the power of the federal government.

Irregardless of the fact that prior to the war, Lincoln wanted to phase in rights for slaves, the south didn't want anything to do with it and felt that they had to go to war with the union states to preserve their property.

This is why Lincoln emancipated the slaves, because he understood that his original stance was nothing more than trying to appease rich land owners in an effort to preserve the union.

This is why a blanket reform was required. He understood that when the day the war ended and the slaves didn't have full freedom, nothing would have changed and the lives lost by the union forces would have been in complete vein.

There is no such thing as a little freedom.

[Javaman]

13. dupe nt

[krispos42]

6. Interesting and surprisingly scholorly debate there

Not what I thought it was going to be, that's for sure.

[Kali]

11. me too

I don't get the laughing until pants peeing thing????

[mod mom]

14. oops wrong place.

[Blue_Tires]

15. eh...just more southern revisionism-lite

not quite to the scale of more extreme memes like "the south was an innocent victim minding its own business" and "the slaves were happy, content and loved their masters", but revisionist BS nonetheless

[walldude]

16. Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world?

Wow is he reporting from the future?