PDA

View Full Version : Is Ron Paul’s civil war theory a contradiction on limited government?




Met Income
04-03-2009, 10:16 AM
Ron Paul has said that the Civil War did not need to happen and that it would have been cheaper in money and human lives for the Fed to buy out each slave instead of going to war. Doesn’t this contradict limited government principles since taxpayer money would be used to buy slaves? Thanks.

sailor
04-03-2009, 10:19 AM
Slavery is an even bigger contradiction to limited government. As is conscription.

dannno
04-03-2009, 10:25 AM
Slavery is an even bigger contradiction to limited government. As is conscription.

Ya since the slave owners bought the slaves under contract that the government had been upholding, and many of these contracts were "bonds" where the owner was continuing to pay these debts, in order to maintain the contracts the only solution would be for a one-time government intervention, then decrying that from that point forward the courts cannot uphold contracts on other individuals for the purposes of slavery or similar.

Xenophage
04-03-2009, 10:31 AM
The question is: how do you get out of a massive problem - like slavery, or social security, or welfare - that the government has created?

Harry Browne suggested we raise funds by auctioning government property. Back in the 19th century there may not have been enough government property to pay for all the slaves, though.

The point is that the Civil War was mostly not fought over slavery. If it was JUST a slavery issue, there are plenty of other ideas that could have been explored besides slaughtering each other on a mass scale.

sratiug
04-03-2009, 10:31 AM
Ron Paul has said that the Civil War did not need to happen and that it would have been cheaper in money and human lives for the Fed to buy out each slave instead of going to war. Doesn’t this contradict limited government principles since taxpayer money would be used to buy slaves? Thanks.

No more than a slave nation invading another slave nation to protect their revenue from a 50% tariff.

MRoCkEd
04-03-2009, 10:32 AM
I'm not an expert on this, but I suppose they could have declared all slave contracts invalid and made conscription illegal. Since slave owners would be upset about wasting money on these contracts, I guess a.... bailout was in order. Don't take my words as gospel.

werdd
04-03-2009, 10:32 AM
Ron Paul has said that the Civil War did not need to happen and that it would have been cheaper in money and human lives for the Fed to buy out each slave instead of going to war. Doesn’t this contradict limited government principles since taxpayer money would be used to buy slaves? Thanks.

I think his reasoning for it is that it would be a better, but not perfect alternative.

They could of bought the slaves for cheaper, saved millions of lives, and not destroyed a southern culture. And states rights would likely still be intact today.

Instead lincoln took the low road, war. The only way i can rationalize this is that lincoln did not care about all of the above, he cared only about a stronger central goverment.

sratiug
04-03-2009, 10:33 AM
The question is: how do you get out of a massive problem - like slavery, or social security, or welfare - that the government has created?

Harry Browne suggested we raise funds by auctioning government property. Back in the 19th century there may not have been enough government property to pay for all the slaves, though.

The point is that the Civil War was mostly not fought over slavery. If it was JUST a slavery issue, there are plenty of other ideas that could have been explored besides slaughtering each other on a mass scale.

Considering the Union was a slave nation, it follows that the so called civil war was not at all about slavery.

Xenophage
04-03-2009, 10:38 AM
Considering the Union was a slave nation, it follows that the so called civil war was not at all about slavery.

I think that even at the time plenty of anti-slavery rhetoric was being thrown around to incite northern abolitionists against the Confederacy, even though abolitionists fought on the side of the South as well.

klamath
04-03-2009, 10:40 AM
Instead of fighting a war to keep the southern states in the Union they should have been expelled for violating the "all men are created equal" line of the Declaration of Independence. Slavery violated everything in the whole concept of freedom.

sratiug
04-03-2009, 11:22 AM
I think that even at the time plenty of anti-slavery rhetoric was being thrown around to incite northern abolitionists against the Confederacy, even though abolitionists fought on the side of the South as well.

With 5 Union slave states, that would've been suicidal behavior. Lincoln was clear he never intended to free any slaves. One slave country cannot invade another to end slavery. It didn't happen. The war was over tariff revenue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_state

The 15 slave states at the time of the Civil War were Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia (including West Virginia which hadn't separated from Virginia at that time). (The District of Columbia also had slavery prior to the Civil War.) Though not states, slavery was practiced in the Nebraska Territory and in the Indian Territory (Oklahoma) as early as the 1850s. The last northern state to abolish slavery was New Jersey in 1804, although the laws of that state retained slaves over a certain age as "apprentices for life" until the 13th Amendment in 1865, which in fact proved to be the actual end of slavery in New Jersey.

[edit] Notice even the District of Columbia allowed slavery. The Lincoln lie must die.

Eleven of these states declared their secession in 1860 and 1861 to form the Confederate States of America; Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri did not leave the Union. West Virginia joined the Union as a free state in 1863 after seceding from Virginia.

Xenophage
04-03-2009, 12:01 PM
With 5 Union slave states, that would've been suicidal behavior. Lincoln was clear he never intended to free any slaves. One slave country cannot invade another to end slavery. It didn't happen. The war was over tariff revenue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_state

I didn't know that, but you're saying slavery didn't even have a peripheral role in the civil war?

Even with five slave states in the Union, Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. Was that suicidal?

I agree that, on the whole, the war had little to do with slavery... but I don't think it had nothing to do with it. Maybe you're right though, I'm no civil war scholar.

nate895
04-03-2009, 12:20 PM
I didn't know that, but you're saying slavery didn't even have a peripheral role in the civil war?

Even with five slave states in the Union, Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. Was that suicidal?

I agree that, on the whole, the war had little to do with slavery... but I don't think it had nothing to do with it. Maybe you're right though, I'm no civil war scholar.

I am in total support of the Confederacy, and I still think that the slavery issue played a role in the war. It caused even more division between Dixieland and Yankeedom than would have been without the issue. That being said, the issue's absence probably still would have led the South to leave eventually.

The war was the perfect storm against slavery in the South. No matter who won, the institution would still have been weakened beyond repair. Nearly all the die hard slavocrats (those who wanted to keep slavery in perpetuity) were pro-Union until secession, including Vice-President Stephens. Davis himself said that he believed that the planters would lose their slaves in the end no matter the outcome of the war, but he wasn't so opposed to the idea of losing slave property. He even trained his slaves in civil affairs. The war for freedom and liberty, even if that was purely putative and not what TPTB were looking for in the South, caused most Southrons to want to emancipate the slaves even faster than before the war.

cthulhufan
04-03-2009, 12:58 PM
Wasn't the Confederacy also trying to use slaves as a means for additional representation? It's my understanding that while not the real issue at hand, it was at least a contributing factor to the war.

nate895
04-03-2009, 01:00 PM
Wasn't the Confederacy also trying to use slaves as a means for additional representation? It's my understanding that while not the real issue at hand, it was at least a contributing factor to the war.

That happened way back at the Constitutional Convention. The South wanted the slaves to count as whole people because the South considered them, well, people. The North considered them property (and the North had slaves at the time), and therefore didn't want them to count as people. In comes the 3/5 compromise.

cthulhufan
04-03-2009, 01:04 PM
That happened way back at the Constitutional Convention. The South wanted the slaves to count as whole people because the South considered them, well, people. The North considered them property (and the North had slaves at the time), and therefore didn't want them to count as people. In comes the 3/5 compromise.

Awesome, thanks for the clarification.

specsaregood
04-03-2009, 01:06 PM
Ron Paul has said that the Civil War did not need to happen and that it would have been cheaper in money and human lives for the Fed to buy out each slave instead of going to war. Doesn’t this contradict limited government principles since taxpayer money would be used to buy slaves? Thanks.

It is not a contradiction as I do not believe that Ron Paul has ever ADVOCATED that "solution". He merely brings it up as a possible alternative to the civil war solution and an alternative that has historical precedent. His point is simply that the "civil war" might not have been necessary, that other alternatives to it did exist. He is not specifically saying that particular alternative (buying the slaves) was the best of all possible solutions.

As usual, this is why he supports debate on the tough decisions such as going to war and why he demanded that Congress actually "Declare War" in Iraq as that would have required more debate on the issue.

rp08orbust
04-03-2009, 01:49 PM
This reminds me--one question I like to ask neocons and foreign interventionists in general is whether France or England would have been justified in invading the US in 1860 in order to free the slaves. They really don't know what to say ;)

jmdrake
04-03-2009, 02:01 PM
Ron Paul has said that the Civil War did not need to happen and that it would have been cheaper in money and human lives for the Fed to buy out each slave instead of going to war. Doesn’t this contradict limited government principles since taxpayer money would be used to buy slaves? Thanks.

The most important issue to point out is that Lincoln actually proposed this same plan. I know some "Lincoln haters" are loath when I point it out, but it's the truth. It also shows that Dr. Paul's plan wasn't such a radical idea after all.

Lincoln's fall back plan was to limit slavery where it already existed. The civil war wasn't about slavery but it was largely about the expansion of slavery into the new territories. Revisionists on both sides of the debate don't want to acknowledge this undeniable fact for reasons I still don't understand.

nate895
04-03-2009, 02:04 PM
The most important issue to point out is that Lincoln actually proposed this same plan. I know some "Lincoln haters" are loath when I point it out, but it's the truth. It also shows that Dr. Paul's plan wasn't such a radical idea after all.

Lincoln's fall back plan was to limit slavery where it already existed. The civil war wasn't about slavery but it was largely about the expansion of slavery into the new territories. Revisionists on both sides of the debate don't want to acknowledge this undeniable fact for reasons I still don't understand.

Why would the South secede if it wanted to get territories for slavery? That would forever limit slavery to where it existed.

dgr
04-03-2009, 02:08 PM
This in no way a defense of slavery. BUT The world wide slave trade, was a monopoly, controlled by "The North Atlantic Slave Trade Company of London, England" . AS a southerner I get so upset when everyone wants to blame us. With all due respect to Alex Haley, he protrayed the illegal slave trade. According to Durant & Durant in The History of Civilization, the slaves were already slaves when they were purchased from the tribes which held them capitaves after defeating them in tribial war. And it was because of increase in supply that they were sold.the illegal slave traders were considered to be the lowest form humanity.
(Iguess because they cut out the middle man) But it was the slaves who were sold to northerner who sang Carry Me back to Ole virginia and Dixie, while they were building the Capitol. So things must not have as bad as in the north. Given time the same thing would have happened in the south, they would have been freed. They were killing each other in Kansas, long before "The War Between the States."
now Lincoln may have been strong on principal but he was a little weak on states rights, considering he ignored the Decelaration Of Independence, where the right to own slaves was one of the rights demanded, and he forgot the constitution and the bill of rights, and since he lacked a majority vote in congress, even befor reconcillition was introduced he may have over streached his execuitive powers. Lets not forget he declared marshall law.While I'm on a role, the freed slaves had the choice to go back to Africia(Liberia) or remain here. the KKK was started by a former UNION Officer, .The 10 years of UNION occupatation called reconstruction caused much more harm than the war itself. Now in Lincoln's defense , if he had lived I believe history would have been much different. THE REPUBLICIAN PARTY was formed in opposition to the democratic "Dreed Scott "Supreme Court decision, we freed the slaves, we gave Johnson the votes to pass the Civil rights legislation, and it was DEMOCRATIC SOUTHERN GOVERNORS, blocking the doors and hoseing down protestors.There wasn't even a Republican elected in the south until Caroll Campbell in SC, over a 100 years later, AND I'M TIRED OF TAKING THE BLAME . Now I feel much better.

RCA
04-03-2009, 02:21 PM
This reminds me--one question I like to ask neocons and foreign interventionists in general is whether France or England would have been justified in invading the US in 1860 in order to free the slaves. They really don't know what to say ;)

I'll have to remember that one!

jmdrake
04-03-2009, 02:28 PM
Why would the South secede if it wanted to get territories for slavery? That would forever limit slavery to where it existed.

Ask the southern legislators themselves. They laid out the case in the declarations of secession.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Here's the Cliff notes version.

* Slavery was originally protected by the constitution
* States were voting in block on various issues based on if they were "slave" or "free"
* Changing the constitution requires 2/3rds ratification
* If enough "free" states were admitted into the union without any more "slave" states being admitted, eventually there would have been enough free states to change the constitution completely over the objections of the remaining slave states.

Now was the expansion of slavery the ONLY issue? Nope. Under Andrew Jackson (the president that killed the 2nd bank of the U.S.) a few southern states threatened to secede most notably South Carolina. Jackson threatened to invade and to hang those pushing for secession (most notably John Calhoun) for treason. It wasn't until slavery become more to the front with the election of Lincoln that there was a critical mass in the south in favor of secession.

TastyWheat
04-03-2009, 02:39 PM
"[W]e have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go."
-Thomas Jefferson

nate895
04-03-2009, 02:40 PM
Ask the southern legislators themselves. They laid out the case in the declarations of secession.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Here's the Cliff notes version.

* Slavery was originally protected by the constitution
* States were voting in block on various issues based on if they were "slave" or "free"
* Changing the constitution requires 2/3rds ratification
* If enough "free" states were admitted into the union without any more "slave" states being admitted, eventually there would have been enough free states to change the constitution completely over the objections of the remaining slave states.

Now was the expansion of slavery the ONLY issue? Nope. Under Andrew Jackson (the president that killed the 2nd bank of the U.S.) a few southern states threatened to secede most notably South Carolina. Jackson threatened to invade and to hang those pushing for secession (most notably John Calhoun) for treason. It wasn't until slavery become more to the front with the election of Lincoln that there was a critical mass in the south in favor of secession.

You have to remember that those declarations were written by the elite in the society, not by the people who actually consented to it happening. To take the position in 1860-61 that separation was necessary to protect slavery, is entirely irrational from any perspective. At the time, the maximum number of states that could have been foreseen to have been admitted would have been 51, four of which would have been slave states (because Texas can divide itself into 5 states). Assuming everything went against the South and Texas refused to split itself, the worst that could have been foreseen would be a 32-15 free states against slave states. That doesn't get an amendment passed for the North. Furthermore, the South rejected a compromise that would have explicitly protected slavery.

Expansion into the territories was less about protecting slavery, and more about protecting overall Southern interests against an increasingly hostile Northern majority that had adopted the idea that the way to prosperity was to tax the South to promote Northern manufactures. If that wasn't the issue at the heart of the war, then the South would have to be considered the largest insane asylum in all history, and that is not joke. It is simply insane to go to war to protect a system that is a small part of a platform of a minority faction in a slim majority party that would have been unconstitutional if passed.

jmdrake
04-03-2009, 03:19 PM
You have to remember that those declarations were written by the elite in the society, not by the people who actually consented to it happening.

And the declaration of independence was written by your local man on the street? :rolleyes: That's really irrelevant. The civil war wasn't fought because there was a "poll" taken by your average southerner or your average northerner for that matter.



To take the position in 1860-61 that separation was necessary to protect slavery, is entirely irrational from any perspective.


:rolleyes: No. It's only "irrational" to people over 100 years later who for reasons of political correctness don't want to admit that southern landowners were just as willing and able to manipulate the general populace for their own aims the way the oil-military-industrial complex is willing to manipulate the general populace today.



At the time, the maximum number of states that could have been foreseen to have been admitted would have been 51, four of which would have been slave states (because Texas can divide itself into 5 states).


Nonsense. The "western territories" that has not yet been carved up into states made up about 1/2 the territory of the U.S. http://www.legendsofamerica.com/photos-americanhistory/CivilWarMap.gif And there was no guarantee that the states had to be carved up the way you expected. You could fit about 5 Delawares in states like Colorado, Nevada etc.



Assuming everything went against the South and Texas refused to split itself, the worst that could have been foreseen would be a 32-15 free states against slave states.


You're also assuming that the remaining states got divided up the way they eventually did. Nobody had a crystal ball in 1863.



That doesn't get an amendment passed for the North. Furthermore, the South rejected a compromise that would have explicitly protected slavery.


That amendment was never really on the table for the south to "reject". In never came close to passage and never would have been ratified by the northern states. Plus it's constitutionality would have been doubtful. You simply can't write a valid amendment that says "I can't be amended".



Expansion into the territories was less about protecting slavery, and more about protecting overall Southern interests against an increasingly hostile Northern majority that had adopted the idea that the way to prosperity was to tax the South to promote Northern manufactures.


Says you. But I'm sure the average southerner on the street totally understood industrial economics. :rolleyes: The people most able to make that argument instead made the argument about the expansion of slavery. Don't be mad at me. I'm just the messenger. Go to their graves and take it up with them.



If that wasn't the issue at the heart of the war, then the South would have to be considered the largest insane asylum in all history, and that is not joke. It is simply insane to go to war to protect a system that is a small part of a platform of a minority faction in a slim majority party that would have been unconstitutional if passed.

And you're point is? Just look at the Iraq war. Look at the Vietnam war. Look at the Spanish American war. Our country has never been above going to war for insane reasons.

Regards,

John M. Drake

sratiug
04-03-2009, 04:00 PM
I didn't know that, but you're saying slavery didn't even have a peripheral role in the civil war?

Even with five slave states in the Union, Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. Was that suicidal?

I agree that, on the whole, the war had little to do with slavery... but I don't think it had nothing to do with it. Maybe you're right though, I'm no civil war scholar.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slaves. It only applied to the states that seceded. Slavery was only ended by constitutional amendment. If the Emancipation Proclamation did legally free the slaves, it only freed them in the South, so that would mean the Union was still a slave nation after the southern slaves were free.

Why, if the North was fighting to end slavery, did they not free their own slaves?

dannno
04-03-2009, 04:20 PM
now Lincoln may have been strong on principal but he was a little weak on states rights, considering he ignored the Decelaration Of Independence, where the right to own slaves was one of the rights demanded

:confused:

dgr
04-03-2009, 04:27 PM
Did you know that today 23 states have succession movements , it started as a NAFT issue expanded to the North American Union issue and I may need a copy for the Trans- National Movement
AND AS WE SOUTHERNERS HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR OVER A CENTURY
IT WAS NEVER ABOUT SLAVERY IT WAS ABOUT STATES RIGHTS

klamath
04-03-2009, 08:11 PM
Wasn't the Confederacy also trying to use slaves as a means for additional representation? It's my understanding that while not the real issue at hand, it was at least a contributing factor to the war.

The south only wanted slaves to count in a census so they would have greater representation but they sure as H*!! didn't want those slaves to vote and count as free men. The south considered them property except when they wanted them to count in a census. Slave states should never been accepted in the Union and the 2/3 compromise should have never happened.

klamath
04-03-2009, 08:22 PM
Wasn't the Confederacy also trying to use slaves as a means for additional representation? It's my understanding that while not the real issue at hand, it was at least a contributing factor to the war.

The south only wanted slaves to count in a census so they would have greater representation but they sure as H*!! didn't want those slaves to vote and count as free men. The south considered them property except when they wanted them to count in a census. Slave states should never been accepted in the Union and the 2/3 compromise should have never happened.

Howard_Roark
04-03-2009, 08:24 PM
Ron Paul has said that the Civil War did not need to happen and that it would have been cheaper in money and human lives for the Fed to buy out each slave instead of going to war. Doesn’t this contradict limited government principles since taxpayer money would be used to buy slaves? Thanks.

there was no fed then. hes referring to the government.

Objectivist
04-03-2009, 08:26 PM
And the money spent on purchasing slaves would have been spent on what? More slaves?
Well not really when slavery was on the decline at that point and time. Slaves produce only what they need to avoid punishment and free workers produce to succeed.

The capitalist model was proved when the south even with free slave labor couldn't compete with the overwhelming forces of market capitalism during the Civil War.

raystone
04-03-2009, 08:52 PM
This reminds me--one question I like to ask neocons and foreign interventionists in general is whether France or England would have been justified in invading the US in 1860 in order to free the slaves. They really don't know what to say ;)


Brilliant!

lucius
04-03-2009, 08:53 PM
//

cthulhufan
04-03-2009, 10:26 PM
The south only wanted slaves to count in a census so they would have greater representation but they sure as H*!! didn't want those slaves to vote and count as free men. The south considered them property except when they wanted them to count in a census. Slave states should never been accepted in the Union and the 2/3 compromise should have never happened.

Ah, see, this was my original understanding of the matter. According to Nate, this was an issue at the convention and not so much during the times immediately prior to the war. Clearly I need to do more research on this and, make no mistake, this is a very important matter to have factually correct information about to me. It is clear to me that this was a huge Federal power grab but the details, for me, are still murky.

I rate this thread A+, so far, it is a good subject to clarify.

Met Income
04-03-2009, 11:26 PM
Listen to the good doctor meat-puppet--k?

You ok? MC made you crazy?

sailor
04-04-2009, 12:09 AM
The question is: how do you get out of a massive problem - like slavery, or social security, or welfare - that the government has created?

Harry Browne suggested we raise funds by auctioning government property. Back in the 19th century there may not have been enough government property to pay for all the slaves, though.

To be honest I don`t think what Ron Paul uses as an example of a solution is a good way of going about it either. The slave owners didn`t deserve to be compensatad. It is kind of like compensating a rapist for his lost fun after you have struck out a law that was making rape legal.

It is the slaves that ought to have been compensated. And the easiest way to do that would be by giving them the land of the plantation owners. They were the ones who were working it anyways so in a sense it really belonged to them anyways. (Since they were the real homesteaders.)


But this situation is really far from unique. The same was really done in Europe actually. The serfs were fred, but the noblemen were compensated for it by the state. (Only in France the aristocracy got jack shit, which made Republicanism so popular across the continent.) But in Europe at least the former serfs got a small piece of land along with their freedom so it was a much better deal.