Ending Slavery and Ron Paul's comments...

[NewUser]

Hi all, this has been on my mind for some time now.

Ron Paul says that every other nation ended slavery by buying the slaves and paying much more than they're worth on the market. I told my friend this and he said "Well, the slave traders could just buy more from Africa" and I was stopped me in my tracks. My friend is right, isn't he? How would buying the slaves end slavery?

I found the video link here where Ron Paul talks about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEI-go3xqZw

Thanks!

[Rudeman]

Seriously you post a video by someone called ronpaulisaracist?

All it takes is a bit of searching, in that video Ron Paul named Britain as an example. So look at what the British did.

They made the slave trade illegal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_of_1807
Then they passed Abolition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

[angelatc]

Hi all, this has been on my mind for some time now.

Ron Paul says that every other nation ended slavery by buying the slaves and paying much more than they're worth on the market. I told my friend this and he said "Well, the slave traders could just buy more from Africa" and I was stopped me in my tracks. My friend is right, isn't he? How would buying the slaves end slavery?

Thanks!

Did you ask your friend how every other nation in the world managed to get around that?

[rambone]

Thomas DiLorenzo is a historian who has written extensively about Lincoln and the Civil War. He is in the Ron Paul camp regarding ending slavery. He has written many articles and books about this, here is one.

Lincoln's Greatest Failure (Or, How a Real Statesman Would Have Ended Slavery) (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/11/thomas-dilorenzo/lincolns-greatest-failure-or-how-a-real-statesman-would-have-ended-slavery/)

A real statesman, as opposed to a monstrous, egomaniacal patronage politician like Abe Lincoln, would have made use of the decades-long world history of peaceful emancipation if his main purpose was to end slavery. Of course, Lincoln always insisted that that was in no way his purpose. He stated this very clearly in his first inaugural address, in which he even supported the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which would have prohibited the federal government from EVER interfering with Southern slavery. He — and the U.S. Congress — declared repeatedly that the purpose of the war was to "save the union," but of course the war destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers.

Jim Powell's book, Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery, provides chapter and verse of how real statesmen of the world, in sharp contrast to Lincoln, ended slavery without resorting to waging total war on their own citizens. Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves. There were some incidents of violence, but nothing remotely approaching the violence of a war that ended up killing 800,000 Americans.

The story of how Great Britain ended slavery peacefully is the highlight of Powell's book. There were once as many as 15,000 slaves in England herself, along with hundreds of thousands throughout the British empire. The British abolitionists combined religion, politics, publicity campaigns, legislation, and the legal system to end slavery there just two decades prior to the American "Civil War."

Great credit is given to the British statesman and member of the House of Commons, William Wilberforce. After organizing an educational campaign to convince British society that slavery was immoral and barbaric, Wilberforce succeeded in getting a Slavery Abolition Act passed in 1833, and within seven years some 800,000 slaves were freed. Tax dollars were used to purchase the freedom of the slaves, which eliminated the only source of opposition to emancipation, wealthy slave owners. It was expensive, but as Powell notes, nothing in the world is more expensive than war.

Powell also writes of how there was tremendous opposition to ending slavery in the Northern states in the U.S, especially Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, where violent mobs wrecked abolitionist printing presses; a New Hampshire school that educated black children was dragged into a swamp by oxen; free blacks were prohibited from residing in Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, and Oregon; abolitionist "agitators" in Northern states were whipped; and orphanages for black children were burned to the ground in Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, Northern state abolitionists persevered and ended slavery there peacefully. There were no violent and enormously destructive "wars of emancipation" in New York or New England.

Cuba, Brazil, and the Congo also ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century by real statesmen in those countries. But not in the United States. "Some people have objected that the United States couldn't have bought the freedom of all the slaves, because that would have cost too much," Powell writes. "But buying the freedom of the slaves was not more expensive than war. Nothing is more costly than war!" In fact, the North's financial costs of war alone would have been enough to purchase the freedom of all the slaves, and then ended slavery legally and constitutionally.

It is a myth that Lincoln toiled mightily in his last days to get a reluctant Congress to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, as portrayed in the Spielberg movie. What he did spend his time on was micromanaging the waging of total war on Southern civilians, who he always considered to be American citizens, since he denied the legitimacy of secession. More importantly, as documented by historians Phillip Magness and Sebastion Page in their book, Colonization After Emancipation, Lincoln spent many long days at the end of his life communicating with foreign governments and plotting with William Seward, among others, to "colonize" all of "the Africans," as he called them, out of the United States once the war was over.

[Feeding the Abscess]

In addition to buying slaves and releasing them (an immoral and imperfect way to ending an obviously immoral institution), government could have also refused to capture and return escaped slaves to their owners. Doing that alone would have made it exorbitantly expensive to hold slaves, and additionally, not affording slave owners protection from those wishing to free slaves would have made it essentially impossible to own other people.

[enhanced_deficit]

Ben Carson: Obamacare is 'Slavery' - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/10/ben-carson-obamacare-is-slavery/)
abcnews.go.com
Oct 11, 2013

Pastor Wright: Obama a puppet of bankers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7plDxu-0rBA&feature=player_detailpage#t=171s)

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

In addition to buying slaves and releasing them (an immoral and imperfect way to ending an obviously immoral institution), government could have also refused to capture and return escaped slaves to their owners. Doing that alone would have made it exorbitantly expensive to hold slaves, and additionally, not affording slave owners protection from those wishing to free slaves would have made it essentially impossible to own other people.

I think Ron could have used the never ending racist allegations to much better effect.

He should have contrasted the way that Britain and other nations were abolitioning slaverly via governments buying the slaves to the way that American libertarians such as the great Lysander Spooner were abolitioning slavery by disobeying the Republican's fugitive slave laws and utilizing jury nullification.

Can you imagine what would have happened had Ron responded to Wolf Blitzer and the others by going on rants about how 19th century libertarians were abolitioning slavery just fine despite Lincoln and the Republicans' brutal attempts to enforce the fugitive slave laws?

He could have then transitioned into how modern libertarians could use jury nullification to oppose the racist drug laws today. He could have pointed out how the government judges tried to threaten jurors back in the 1850's the same way they do today into not exercising their ancient rights to veto oppressive government statutes and how regardless of how his run for the nomination turns out, if his campaign succeeded only in encouraging large numbers of libertarians to ignore the judge's threats and veto the racist drug laws then his campaign would have accomplished the so-called "racial and social justice" that Wolf Blitzer and the rest pretend to promote.

[RonPaulMall]

Hi all, this has been on my mind for some time now.

Ron Paul says that every other nation ended slavery by buying the slaves and paying much more than they're worth on the market. I told my friend this and he said "Well, the slave traders could just buy more from Africa" and I was stopped me in my tracks. My friend is right, isn't he? How would buying the slaves end slavery?

I found the video link here where Ron Paul talks about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEI-go3xqZw

Thanks!

The importation of slaves from Africa had been illegal in America for nearly a half century by the time the War Between the States commenced. So your friend is not right, just historically ignorant.

[PierzStyx]

In addition to buying slaves and releasing them (an immoral and imperfect way to ending an obviously immoral institution), government could have also refused to capture and return escaped slaves to their owners. Doing that alone would have made it exorbitantly expensive to hold slaves, and additionally, not affording slave owners protection from those wishing to free slaves would have made it essentially impossible to own other people.


The government had to much tied up in slavery. The Dred Scott Case gave the federal government incredible powers to overthrow state laws and regulations.

[PierzStyx]

Hi all, this has been on my mind for some time now.

Ron Paul says that every other nation ended slavery by buying the slaves and paying much more than they're worth on the market. I told my friend this and he said "Well, the slave traders could just buy more from Africa" and I was stopped me in my tracks. My friend is right, isn't he? How would buying the slaves end slavery?

I found the video link here where Ron Paul talks about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEI-go3xqZw

Thanks!


The US had made the international slave trade illegal. US slavery by the time of the Civil War slavery in the US was self-sustaining. If you had bought slaves and then freed them there wasn't any market to buy slaves or make new people slaves. Your friend doesn't knwo their history.

[Christian Liberty]

I've thought Ron was wrong here for awhile now. Not because it wouldn't have worked, it probably would have. But its completely unfair to the taxpayers that would be force t pay to compensate human kidnappers. Its justifying a lesser evil (theft) in order to prevent a greater one (kidnapping.)

The bottom line is that it would have been completely justified to kill every slaver in the country to free the slaves. The reason the civil war was wrong is not that it killed slavers, it was wrong because it was fought to prevent secession, had nothing to do with preventing slavery, used slavery in order to destroy slavery (conscription) killed lots of people who weren't slavers, and stole money from Union civilians in order to accomplish the "mission."

[angelatc]

I've thought Ron was wrong here for awhile now. Not because it wouldn't have worked, it probably would have. But its completely unfair to the taxpayers that would be force t pay to compensate human kidnappers. Its justifying a lesser evil (theft) in order to prevent a greater one (kidnapping.)

The bottom line is that it would have been completely justified to kill every slaver in the country to free the slaves. The reason the civil war was wrong is not that it killed slavers, it was wrong because it was fought to prevent secession, had nothing to do with preventing slavery, used slavery in order to destroy slavery (conscription) killed lots of people who weren't slavers, and stole money from Union civilians in order to accomplish the "mission."


Yeah, right. Figures you'd be here with the "Let's kill people!" position.

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, right. Figures you'd be here with the "Let's kill people!" position.

People who keep slaves are innocent?

Ron's position features theft from the innocent, hence why it is wrong.

[angelatc]

People who keep slaves are innocent?

Ron's position features theft from the innocent, hence why it is wrong.

People who kept slaves were indeed innocent, as in - not guilty of a crime - up until the government changed its position.

You're applying modern ethical standards to a different historical period. But this whole conversation is dumb, so no reason to think it wouldn't go full retard.

[Christian Liberty]

Morality is not determined by "the law."

[Rudeman]

I've thought Ron was wrong here for awhile now. Not because it wouldn't have worked, it probably would have. But its completely unfair to the taxpayers that would be force t pay to compensate human kidnappers. Its justifying a lesser evil (theft) in order to prevent a greater one (kidnapping.)

The bottom line is that it would have been completely justified to kill every slaver in the country to free the slaves. The reason the civil war was wrong is not that it killed slavers, it was wrong because it was fought to prevent secession, had nothing to do with preventing slavery, used slavery in order to destroy slavery (conscription) killed lots of people who weren't slavers, and stole money from Union civilians in order to accomplish the "mission."


Theft by government = not justifiable
Murder by government = justifiable

Um ok...

[angelatc]

Morality is not determined by "the law."

The reflects morality. Originally, people thought slavery was acceptable. As that perception changed with the majority, the law changed to reflect it.

This is why I have no hope for America. The youth today are simply beyond reach.

By all means - let us allow the federal government to go shoot dissidents in the head. Brilliant plan.

[Christian Liberty]

The reflects morality. Originally, people thought slavery was acceptable. As that perception changed with the majority, the law changed to reflect it.


But the morality never changed.



This is why I have no hope for America. The youth today are simply beyond reach.

By all means - let us allow the federal government to go shoot dissidents in the head. Brilliant plan.

First off, I never said anything about letting the Federal government do anything. Second of all, you don't see the difference between "dissenters" and people who claim to own other people?

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/aK367nd.gif

[NIU Students for Liberty]

People who kept slaves were indeed innocent, as in - not guilty of a crime - up until the government changed its position.

You're applying modern ethical standards to a different historical period. But this whole conversation is dumb, so no reason to think it wouldn't go full retard.

There is no such thing as "modern ethical standards". Were there no abolitionists prior to the Civil War? Was slavery accepted by 100% of the population? People knew then just as they know now that slavery was immoral, just as there were people arguing against the Iraq War based on moral grounds while they were surrounded by a majority who favored going to war.

[Snew]

This is why I have no hope for America. The youth today are simply beyond reach.


I disagree with FF on the killing stuff too, but this is collectivist bs.