Does Ron Paul even know what the hell he's talking about?

[ggoose25]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061909.php

http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/ron-paul-very-gradual-emancipationist/

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/ron_paul_the_good_the_bad_and.php

I'm not dogging him on finding a more civil solution to war, but anyone who knows their history knows that Abraham Lincoln was no iron fisted fascist. He was a pragmatic compromiser trying to keep together a fragile union that disintegrated the moment he was elected.

His revisionist history isn't that disturbing, its just that he has this penchant for always seeming to be on cusp of being a blatant racist.

[Nbadan]

...and they say history is left to be written by the winners....

[JoeChalupa]

I heard him this morning on Morning Joe and he was toast and sounded very confused about the facts.

[Gerryatrics]

I've always felt the best way to win the hearts and minds of the Republican party is to attack Abraham Lincoln

[BradLohaus]

Did Lincoln ever put the slave purchase & release option on the table? I've never read or heard anything about it.

[boutons_]

"Did Lincoln ever put the slave purchase & release option on the table"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/more-than-historical-stup_b_78423.html

[BradLohaus]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/more-than-historical-stup_b_78423.html[/url]

There were about 4 million slaves in the US in 1860. If Lincoln's offer was $400 per slave in compensation, then that comes to $1.4 billion in total cost for buying and freeing all slaves.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/warcosts.htm

^According to that website, an 1879 estimate of the total cost of the Cvil War came to $6.2 billion. Plus: "By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost."

Not to mention the cost of Reconstruction:"The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins."

Plus the biggest cost of all: "...resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War. The Federals lost 110,100 killed in action and mortally wounded, and another 224,580 to disease. The Confederates lost approximately 94,000 as a result of battle and another 164,000 to disease. Even if one survived a wound, any projectile that hit bone in either an arm or a leg almost invariably necessitated amputation. The best estimate of Federal army personnel wounded is 275,175; naval personnel wounded, 2,226. Surviving Confederate records indicate 194,026 wounded."

Needless to say, if $400 per slave was Lincoln's final offer, then he could have offered alot more before reaching the eventual full cost of the Civil War. In fact (depending on how much value we put on each casualty), he likely could have offered not only much more per slave, but also a payment to each ensalved family, as well as a temporary subsidy to the south to ease the southern economy's transition to nonslave labor.

If $400 per slave was Lincoln's final concession then he didn't come close to seeing what the full costs of the American Civil War would be. It's funny how any criticism of Lincoln's handling of the Civil War has become almost completely off limits. I wonder if 150 years from now in post Bill of Rights America criticism of current US ME policy and wars will be treated the same way. No reason to think otherwise, I guess.

[PixelPusher]

Needless to say, if $400 per slave was Lincoln's final offer, then he could have offered alot more before reaching the eventual full cost of the Civil War. In fact (depending on how much value we put on each casualty), he likely could have offered not only much more per slave, but also a payment to each ensalved family, as well as a temporary subsidy to the south to ease the southern economy's transition to nonslave labor.

If $400 per slave was Lincoln's final concession then he didn't come close to seeing what the full costs of the American Civil War would be. It's funny how any criticism of Lincoln's handling of the Civil War has become almost completely off limits. I wonder if 150 years from now in post Bill of Rights America criticism of current US ME policy and wars will be treated the same way. No reason to think otherwise, I guess.
Did you expect Lincoln (or any other President) to have some prophetic accounting ability to forsee how long and costly a war with Southern states (that hadn't yet seceeded from the U.S) would be in comparison to his $400 per slave bill?

Why is it, in these hindsight debates about whether or not the Civil War should have been fought that the Confederate South always gets a free pass, as if their secession was wasn't their fault (the evil North made them do it!)?

[Extra Stout]

Needless to say, if $400 per slave was Lincoln's final offer, then he could have offered alot more before reaching the eventual full cost of the Civil War. In fact (depending on how much value we put on each casualty), he likely could have offered not only much more per slave, but also a payment to each ensalved family, as well as a temporary subsidy to the south to ease the southern economy's transition to nonslave labor.

If $400 per slave was Lincoln's final concession then he didn't come close to seeing what the full costs of the American Civil War would be. It's funny how any criticism of Lincoln's handling of the Civil War has become almost completely off limits. I wonder if 150 years from now in post Bill of Rights America criticism of current US ME policy and wars will be treated the same way. No reason to think otherwise, I guess.
Sure, the problem was that Lincoln simply failed to offer enough to Southern slaveowners. That was the issue. Because after all slavery was simply an afterthought to the Southern economy, and the elites' power at that time in no way depended upon maintaining the prevailing labor structure.

No, Lincoln was simply unreasonable, as the previous 80 years had made clear that slavery was an incidental and easily resolvable side issue in the United States. That was why, upon Lincoln's election, Southern leaders reached out for a mutually agreeable solution, rather than unilaterally seceding from the Union, and why they intended to work out an agreement regarding the debts and assets of the two separate nations, rather than firing the first shot at Fort Sumter.

Clearly, Ron Paul did not say something insane, and you are not being forced to tie yourself into silly intellectual knots in order to convince yourself that he did not just say something insane.

[Extra Stout]

Did you expect Lincoln (or any other President) to have some prophetic accounting ability to forsee how long and costly a war with Southern states (that hadn't yet seceeded from the U.S) would be in comparison to his $400 per slave bill?

Why is it, in these hindsight debates about whether or not the Civil War should have been fought that the Confederate South always gets a free pass, as if their secession was wasn't their fault (the evil North made them do it!)?
Well, by golly, they never would have joined the Union in the first place were it not for the assurances that those bleeding-heart Yankees weren't gonna try to free the slaves.

Then when it became clear that the Yankees weren't going to live up to their end of the bargain, the Southern states simply exerted their sovereign right to opt out of the contract! These are very important principles of freedom! The perseverance of chattel slavery is not too big a price to pay for freedom!

After all, what was the big deal? African slavery was banned worldwide within the next two decades, and since world events always happen in a vacuum, I'm sure the Confederate defeat in the Civil War had nothing to do with that.

[BradLohaus]

Did you expect Lincoln (or any other President) to have some prophetic accounting ability to forsee how long and costly a war with Southern states (that hadn't yet seceeded from the U.S) would be in comparison to his $400 per slave bill?

Why is it, in these hindsight debates about whether or not the Civil War should have been fought that the Confederate South always gets a free pass, as if their secession was wasn't their fault (the evil North made them do it!)?

Lincoln or anybody else certainly should have known how long and costly and bloody a war with the South would be. And I'm not giving the South a free pass at all, but I'm not giving Lincoln a free pass either. He was the president shortly before and during the deadliest event in US history, and yet for most people, for some reason, any criticism of Lincoln is off limits. I honestly don't think that I've ever seen anything critical of Lincoln's handling of the war and its run up in a history textbook or on TV. It's like every decision he made was perfect.



Sure, the problem was that Lincoln simply failed to offer enough to Southern slaveowners. That was the issue. Because after all slavery was simply an afterthought to the Southern economy, and the elites' power at that time in no way depended upon maintaining the prevailing labor structure.

Well, the price of a male slave in the US in 1850 was $1000. When you factor in the costs of the war itself (that Lincoln should have certainly known would be huge in both money and lives) then yes, I would say that Lincoln didn't offer nearly enough in his attempt at compensated emancipation. 3 out of 4 southern families didn't own slaves, and the majority of the 25% who did didn't own many. Slaves were basically concentrated in the hands of the southern elite who owned the big plantations - and the politicians, if they weren't also politicians themselves. So yes, the elite unqestionably depended upon slave labor. But why did Lincoln only offer $400? That's not very pragmatic.

The southern plantation owners were terrible, no doubt. But I guess we will never know what might have happened if Lincoln had offered them far above market value for their slaves.


No, Lincoln was simply unreasonable, as the previous 80 years had made clear that slavery was an incidental and easily resolvable side issue in the United States. That was why, upon Lincoln's election, Southern leaders reached out for a mutually agreeable solution, rather than unilaterally seceding from the Union, and why they intended to work out an agreement regarding the debts and assets of the two separate nations, rather than firing the first shot at Fort Sumter.

I don't think that a mutually agreeable solution was possible, other than buying the slaves and releasing them. But looking at the numbers it looks like Lincoln didn't do a good job with that. When Lincoln said before he was elected that the US would have a uniform slavery law, and then failed in his buyout attempt after the states secceeded, then the writing was pretty much on the wall.


Clearly, Ron Paul did not say something insane, and you are not being forced to tie yourself into silly intellectual knots in order to convince yourself that he did not just say something insane.

Silly intellectual knots? I'm just looking at statistics like the price of slaves, the huge costs of the war, and Lincoln's attempt at compensated emancipation. I can't help but think that he may have made a huge error by not making greater concessions to southern slave owners - not because the slave owners were right, but just for the sake of saving the whole country from its worst most horrific event.

The only person who said something insane was Tim Russert when he said to Paul, "If we didn't fight the Civil War, then wouldn't we still have slaves today?" Of course Russert knows better than that. He was just playing dumb to try to make Paul look crazy or racist. Sadly, that tactic works alot.

[Extra Stout]

Silly intellectual knots? I'm just looking at statistics like the price of slaves, the huge costs of the war, and Lincoln's attempt at compensated emancipation. I can't help but think that he may have made a huge error by not making greater concessions to southern slave owners - not because the slave owners were right, but just for the sake of saving the whole country from its worst most horrific event.

The only person who said something insane was Tim Russert when he said to Paul, "If we didn't fight the Civil War, then wouldn't we still have slaves today?" Of course Russert knows better than that. He was just playing dumb to try to make Paul look crazy or racist. Sadly, that tactic works alot.
You are basing your position on an unsupportable assumption; namely, that the reason for Delaware's intransigence was that Lincoln's compensated emancipation proposal simply didn't offer enough money.

Lincoln's proposal offered four to five times the market value of a slave in Delaware. (If you research, you will find that the price of a prime male slave in the Deep South was much higher than Lincoln's Delaware offer; but in Delaware, the going rate was $100 a head.) Price was not the problem.

The reasons Delaware balked include:
1) Resentment at federal meddling in state affairs at any price
2) Racial hatred toward blacks, and a fear at what would happen if blacks were made equal to whites in society.

Lincoln's thoughts at revising the proposal steered towards deporting the freedmen to Liberia or Haiti to relieve racial fears, not raising what was already a very generous monetary offer. However, he didn't have the luxury of waiting another year for the Delaware legislature to reconvene, so the proposal was dropped.

[SouthernFried]

"If I could save the union without freeing any slaves, I would do it" - Abraham Lincoln (paraphrasing)

This was about power...not slavery. Lincoln was a big federal govt type, and set the tone since. States bow down or get shot-up. There didn't need to be a war if secession was allowed, Lincoln wouldn't. Even if you agree with Lincolns actions, don't kid yourself it was about anything else.

That is the reference that Paul is speaking of. And he's right.

[Holt's Cat]

"If I could save the union without freeing any slaves, I would do it" - Abraham Lincoln (paraphrasing)

This was about power...not slavery. Lincoln was a big federal govt type, and set the tone since. States bow down or get shot-up. There didn't need to be a war if succession was allowed, Lincoln wouldn't. Even if you agree with Lincolns actions, don't kid yourself it was about anything else.

That is the reference that Paul is speaking of. And he's right.


You say that like it's a bad thing.

[SouthernFried]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Yeah, I guess I do.

Actually, It's hard to argue that it worked out. Still, it's hard to argue cuz we don't know what the alternative coulda been.

For an Alternative POV, read Harry Turtledove's "Guns of the South." If the South woulda won. Fun reading.

[Holt's Cat]

Let's see, the Union lets the South secede and the slaves are freed in about 1910. Meanwhile the North moves along while the South turns even more backassward. There you go.

[SouthernFried]

Interesting how people think the South woulda freed the slaves anyway. If the war was about slavery, then it would have been a useless, unecessary war.

[Holt's Cat]

Yeah, we can't think about the people, we have to think about human liberty.

[PixelPusher]

Damn those rebellious American colonists! If they had just stayed loyal, the British Empire would have granted them independence eventually...at some point...it was inevitable right?

[Galileo]

There were about 4 million slaves in the US in 1860. If Lincoln's offer was $400 per slave in compensation, then that comes to $1.4 billion in total cost for buying and freeing all slaves.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/warcosts.htm

^According to that website, an 1879 estimate of the total cost of the Cvil War came to $6.2 billion. Plus: "By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost."

Not to mention the cost of Reconstruction:"The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins."

Plus the biggest cost of all: "...resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453 during the Civil War. The Federals lost 110,100 killed in action and mortally wounded, and another 224,580 to disease. The Confederates lost approximately 94,000 as a result of battle and another 164,000 to disease. Even if one survived a wound, any projectile that hit bone in either an arm or a leg almost invariably necessitated amputation. The best estimate of Federal army personnel wounded is 275,175; naval personnel wounded, 2,226. Surviving Confederate records indicate 194,026 wounded."

Needless to say, if $400 per slave was Lincoln's final offer, then he could have offered alot more before reaching the eventual full cost of the Civil War. In fact (depending on how much value we put on each casualty), he likely could have offered not only much more per slave, but also a payment to each ensalved family, as well as a temporary subsidy to the south to ease the southern economy's transition to nonslave labor.

If $400 per slave was Lincoln's final concession then he didn't come close to seeing what the full costs of the American Civil War would be. It's funny how any criticism of Lincoln's handling of the Civil War has become almost completely off limits. I wonder if 150 years from now in post Bill of Rights America criticism of current US ME policy and wars will be treated the same way. No reason to think otherwise, I guess.

Very good analysis.

Ron Paul is a genius, we need to get him into Washington to clean out the scum.

Had Lincoln not gotten lucky with Stonewall Jackson getting killed by friendly fire in 1863, the south might have won the civil war. Then slavery could have lasted another 50 years.

Ron Paul is right.

Get the latest news:

www.dailypaul.com

www.lewrockwell.com

www.prisonplanet.com

www.ronpaulforums.com

[Extra Stout]

Damn those rebellious American colonists! If they had just stayed loyal, the British Empire would have granted them independence eventually...at some point...it was inevitable right?
Canada won its independence in 1982.

[Extra Stout]

Let's see, the Union lets the South secede and the slaves are freed in about 1910. Meanwhile the North moves along while the South turns even more backassward. There you go.
If there are two countries, what happens with territorial expansion? Which territory goes to which country? Would there be a repeat of Bleeding Kansas all the way to the Pacific? Would it even be possible to avoid war?

Is there any reason to assume slaveholders would simply relinquish their hold on economic power when their labor model no longer theoretically was the most efficient? Do elites ever willingly give up their hold on power, or do they turn to every type of corruption and repression to protect their own interests?

Does slavery fade away as it did in the late 1800's if there remains a strong slave power in North America with close ties to the dominant world power in Britain? Does slavery instead enjoy a resurgence? Is it even safe to assume that slavery would become inefficient relative to wage labor?

How much greater influence would Britain enjoy over a further-divided North America?

What happens to the CSA with the collapse of agriculture-based economies in the early 20th century? Does it become another Brazil? Does it succumb to fascism?

What happens with the emergence of Marxism in the early 20th century? Would the rump Union be able to stave off a socialist revolution?

What happens in World War I? Does either nation still get involved? What if the nations entered on opposite sides? What happens to the North American continent if the two sides finally go to war fifty years after the Civil War in our history, with all the advances in munitions? How would the loss of life compare to the 600,000 lost in the actual war?

Can the Paulbots answer any of these questions?

[SouthernFried]

Answer what-if questions?

If you want answers to things that didn't happen, there are many fiction writers you can turn to.

Harry Turtledove's "Guns of the South," might give you some fictional answers if your that interested.

[Holt's Cat]

If it's fiction it has to be true.

[Extra Stout]

Answer what-if questions?

If you want answers to things that didn't happen, there are many fiction writers you can turn to.

Harry Turtledove's "Guns of the South," might give you some fictional answers if your that interested.
I don't want answers to things that didn't happen. Neither do I want Paul supporters to take a Procrustean approach to history.

[PixelPusher]

Answer what-if questions?

If you want answers to things that didn't happen, there are many fiction writers you can turn to.

Harry Turtledove's "Guns of the South," might give you some fictional answers if your that interested.
If you don't want to answer ES's "what if's", you and Ron Paul have no ground to speculate as to the need for the Civil War in the first place.

[SouthernFried]

If you don't want to answer ES's "what if's", you and Ron Paul have no ground to speculate as to the need for the Civil War in the first place.


The civil war was an actuality. Much like the IRAQ war that everyone "speculates as to the need for."

The what-if's are not.

[PixelPusher]

The civil war was an actuality. Much like the IRAQ war that everyone "speculates as to the need for."

The what-if's are not.
Civil War/Iraq War are actualities, your speculation as to thier need it not. There is no difference between ES's speculations and yours. Try again.