Ron Paul was right about the "Lincoln" issue

[KCIndy]

Dr. Paul has been taking a lot of heat in the media for his statements on "Meet the Press" regarding Lincoln and the American Civil War. I've seen lots of commentators belittling his statements, and in general suggesting Ron Paul is a kook at best, and a racist at worst.

But the point Ron Paul made was actually valid:

It would have been cheaper for the Federal government to purchase every person held in slavery and set them free, and even continue to pay for subsidized labor for the large southern plantations for several years after emancipation, than to pay the cost of raising and equipping a multi-million man army and fighting a devastating war.

The only question is, would the southern states have accepted the deal? The general sentiment in the south was that the Federal government had no authority to tell the individual states what they should do about slavery. But what if the Federal government had offered to "purchase" the slaves held in the American south at above-market prices, plus adding a fifteen year "stipend" to cover the cost of hiring replacement labor? Personally, I think that deal might have gone through....

Remember, the American Civil War was started by the South - not Lincoln and the North - because (among other things) they saw slavery as a basic "States Rights" issue, as well as worrying about the economic consequences of losing their slaves.

Let's look at the cost of the Civil War. Here's some quick research:

www.civilwarhome.com/warcosts.htm says the total cost of the war (both North and South) totaled approximately $11,589,808,707 or approximately 11.6 billion dollars. That number was reached by adding the figures in the second paragraph:

In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. 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.

A different take is given by www.uspoliticsonline.com which lists the direct costs alone as approximately 10.4 billion dollars:

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/archives/warcost.htm

According to Wikipedia, there were a total of approximately 4 million slaves in the United States as of the 1860 census:

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

That means if we divide the (higher estimate ) 11.589 billion figure by 4 million, we get the figure of $2897.45 and if divide the (lower estimate) figure by the same 4 million, we get $2600 even.

That means the if the south would have accepted a settlement in which slaves were "purchased" and emancipated by the Federal government at a cost of between $2600 to $2900 per slave, war could have been averted.

According to Conflict and Compromise: The Political Economy of Slavery, Emancipation, and the American Civil War by Roger L. Ransom, the average price of a slave in the American South in 1859 was $800, and a "prime" field hand commanding top price went for $1500 (page 46):

http://books.google.com/books?id=SOEdtuzB9HUC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=average+price+slave+1860&source=web&ots=dfjGK8R263&sig=FDrWyYmqKIEO7QbBrbhbthLIN8I

So even if we take the smaller number reflecting just the immediate cost of the American Civil War, we discover that the following deal could have been worked out:

Each slave in the American South could have had their freedom "purchased" by the Federal government at an average of $1,000 per person, plus a $100 per slave subsidy could have been paid to the slaveholder for the next fifteen years to hire replacement labor, and the end cost would STILL have been cheaper than the alternative of war.... and that's not even counting the nearly one million men killed or severely wounded. How do you even put a price on that?

RON PAUL WAS RIGHT.

[JMO]

The civil war was building up, I think it was inevitable. Regardless I think it was a topic that should not of been brought up by Ron Paul. We are so far detached from that time period that almost every person has no idea of the details, all they see is south equals slavery and north wanted to abolish slavery. This is really a losing topic for Ron Paul whether or not he has some valid points.

[Dequeant]

and the end cost would STILL have been cheaper than the alternative of war.... and that's not even counting the nearly one million men killed or severely wounded. How do you even put a price on that?

First off, i'm from Mississippi and i've lived all my life in the south.

But your question was "how do you even put a price on that". So yea, you have your figures and historical data because it happened......i'm sure if lincoln had been given access to a time machine so he could come to the future and see what the total costs would be, he'd probably buy the slaves their freedom. However, we live in reality, and in reality Lincoln thought it would be a "quick" war, lasting only a few days to a couple months......we all know that wasn't the case because it's history.

So yea, you can criticize lincoln.....feel free, no one is above criticism in my opinion, however, at the very least be realistic with an honest grasp on the situation. To answer your question very simply, "you can't put a price on that, neither could lincoln, and had you been alive in 1860....even if you were the smartest man alive, you wouldn't have any idea of the price of the alternative".

[max]

Dr. Paul has been taking a lot of heat in the media for his statements on "Meet the Press" regarding Lincoln and the American Civil War. I've seen lots of commentators belittling his statements, and in general suggesting Ron Paul is a kook at best, and a racist at worst.

But the point Ron Paul made was actually valid:

It would have been cheaper for the Federal government to purchase every person held in slavery and set them free, and even continue to pay for subsidized labor for the large southern plantations for several years after emancipation, than to pay the cost of raising and equipping a multi-million man army and fighting a devastating war.

The only question is, would the southern states have accepted the deal? The general sentiment in the south was that the Federal government had no authority to tell the individual states what they should do about slavery. But what if the Federal government had offered to "purchase" the slaves held in the American south at above-market prices, plus adding a fifteen year "stipend" to cover the cost of hiring replacement labor? Personally, I think that deal might have gone through....

Remember, the American Civil War was started by the South - not Lincoln and the North - because (among other things) they saw slavery as a basic "States Rights" issue, as well as worrying about the economic consequences of losing their slaves.

Let's look at the cost of the Civil War. Here's some quick research:

www.civilwarhome.com/warcosts.htm says the total cost of the war (both North and South) totaled approximately $11,589,808,707 or approximately 11.6 billion dollars. That number was reached by adding the figures in the second paragraph:

In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. 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.

A different take is given by www.uspoliticsonline.com which lists the direct costs alone as approximately 10.4 billion dollars:

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/archives/warcost.htm

According to Wikipedia, there were a total of approximately 4 million slaves in the United States as of the 1860 census:

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

That means if we divide the (higher estimate ) 11.589 billion figure by 4 million, we get the figure of $2897.45 and if divide the (lower estimate) figure by the same 4 million, we get $2600 even.

That means the if the south would have accepted a settlement in which slaves were "purchased" and emancipated by the Federal government at a cost of between $2600 to $2900 per slave, war could have been averted.

According to Conflict and Compromise: The Political Economy of Slavery, Emancipation, and the American Civil War by Roger L. Ransom, the average price of a slave in the American South in 1859 was $800, and a "prime" field hand commanding top price went for $1500 (page 46):

http://books.google.com/books?id=SOEdtuzB9HUC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=average+price+slave+1860&source=web&ots=dfjGK8R263&sig=FDrWyYmqKIEO7QbBrbhbthLIN8I

So even if we take the smaller number reflecting just the immediate cost of the American Civil War, we discover that the following deal could have been worked out:

Each slave in the American South could have had their freedom "purchased" by the Federal government at an average of $1,000 per person, plus a $100 per slave subsidy could have been paid to the slaveholder for the next fifteen years to hire replacement labor, and the end cost would STILL have been cheaper than the alternative of war.... and that's not even counting the nearly one million men killed or severely wounded. How do you even put a price on that?

RON PAUL WAS RIGHT.

Now if you could only boil that down to a 30 second sound byte, boobus Americanus would get it.

But thats always been our biggest handicap. We are about ideas and ideals....concepts that require a bit of time and thought to understand.

Good reserach

[sunny]

your darn tootin he was right! people are ignorant of american history and the connection between it and british history. hey, i learned the same crap in high school that is being taught today.
griffin details that topic in creature from jekyll island for anyone to read.
you can get that book at your local library - or it can be inter library loaned.

of course he's getting crap for bringing out the real issues of the lincoln presidency. thomas dilorenzo
wrote a great book about "honest" abe.........here's a review by walter williams.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html

this book oughtta be in EVERY high school history class!

[rfbz]

I haven't fully looked into this, but a couple things:

If the government started trying to buy slaves in order to end slavery, wouldn't that drive the prices up to ridiculous levels? As soon as word got out, slave owners would be asking for a lot more.

If the government starting paying big for slaves, I could imagine a newly freed slave being captured just to be resold to the government for a quick profit.

[i2ambler]

The civil war was building up, I think it was inevitable. Regardless I think it was a topic that should not of been brought up by Ron Paul. We are so far detached from that time period that almost every person has no idea of the details, all they see is south equals slavery and north wanted to abolish slavery. This is really a losing topic for Ron Paul whether or not he has some valid points.

He didnt bring it up.. whatshisnuts brought it up during the interview. It was somewhat apropos to nothing. There was absolutely no context given with that quote.

[bgarrett]

KCindy, the South did NOT start the War of Northern Aggression!
Lincoln put the South in a position where the South was forced to fire on Fort Sumpter.
If it was legal to own a slave (and it was legal), then the government was wrong to take Americans possessions without compensating the owners of their property

[ronpaulfan]

If the government started trying to buy slaves in order to end slavery, wouldn't that drive the prices up to ridiculous levels? As soon as word got out, slave owners would be asking for a lot more.


Most of the freed slaves would've gone back to work as freemen. There wouldn't have been a labor shortage.

[mconder]

Regardless I think it was a topic that should not of been brought up by Ron Paul.

No, actually it was Tim Russet that brought it up. I'm sure RP would have rather talked about the impending dollar collapse.

[KCIndy]

I haven't fully looked into this, but a couple things:

If the government started trying to buy slaves in order to end slavery, wouldn't that drive the prices up to ridiculous levels? As soon as word got out, slave owners would be asking for a lot more.

If the government starting paying big for slaves, I could imagine a newly freed slave being captured just to be resold to the government for a quick profit.


The idea would have been to END slavery through a one-time "purchase" arrangement.

In other words, the sequence would have gone something like this:

1 - slavery would be legally ended
2 - the government would have compensated slave holders for their loss of "property" (as hideous as it sounds to call human beings property, that is how the slaves were viewed at that time)
3 - slavery would then be forever abolished, and any labor would have been contracted and paid labor with no forced servitude.

[AceNZ]

Remember, the American Civil War was started by the South - not Lincoln and the North - because (among other things) they saw slavery as a basic "States Rights" issue, as well as worrying about the economic consequences of losing their slaves.

That's not correct. The civil war was started by the north, and in spite of what most Americans are taught in school, it originally had nothing to do with slavery. The slavery issue was raised by Lincoln later, as a way to create support for the war. In fact, slavery was already on its way out, and would have faded away on its own without the war.

The civil war was actually started as a result of tax issues.

[KCIndy]

KCindy, the South did NOT start the War of Northern Aggression!
Lincoln put the South in a position where the South was forced to fire on Fort Sumpter.
If it was legal to own a slave (and it was legal), then the government was wrong to take Americans possessions without compensating the owners of their property

That was exactly the point of my post - instead of taking the "property" of the slave holders without compensation, the government could have purchased the slaves at a cost well above market price *and* paid a $100 stipend for fifteen years after that (a more than adequate compensation) and the total cost would STILL have been less than the financial cost of the war... even if we disregard the human cost in lives.

[mconder]

So yea, you can criticize lincoln.....feel free, no one is above criticism in my opinion

From a political perspective, there are two sacred cows you just don't mess with in this country, Martin Luther King Jr. and Abe Lincoln, in that order. In some circles these two are more revered than Jesus, so it goes without saying that if you want to be elected you don't go there. Most of us aren't running for office, so we are free to discuss these things as reasoned individuals. Just be careful what you say, 20 years from now you may be running for office and some a-hole like Tim Russet will be using something like this to ruin you, even it what you said was true.

[KCIndy]

That's not correct. The civil war was started by the north, and in spite of what most Americans are taught in school, it originally had nothing to do with slavery.

On the overall view, you are arguably correct - but technically, the first shots were fired at Fort Sumpter, SC and it was the subsequent secession of several southern states that led to military hostilities.

[Politeia]

I don't follow the MSM, so was unaware that apparently just now there is a crescendo of criticism therein of RP's remarks re the "Civil" War -- as I learn from the cascade of responses being posted this evening on the LRC blog: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog.

One thing I'd never noticed before (I've never visited the Lincoln Memorial in Wash DC) but Lew Rockwell points out, is that the Imperial-style statue of the Great Man is "festooned with fasces" --

http://www.destination360.com/north-...memorial-s.jpg

-- the two standing bundles of rods on which His hands are resting. Interesting, in that in Lincoln's time most educated people would know what they stand for, though hardly anyone does now. Hint: the word "fascism" is derived from "fasces":

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

[ClockwiseSpark]

That's not correct. The civil war was started by the north, and in spite of what most Americans are taught in school, it originally had nothing to do with slavery. The slavery issue was raised by Lincoln later, as a way to create support for the war. In fact, slavery was already on its way out, and would have faded away on its own without the war.

The civil war was actually started as a result of tax issues.

QFT

[i2ambler]

Its not like this is the first time Ron has talked about the civil war. it was brought up on the Bill Maher show as well.. This is the media, they will purpousfully bring up stuff that is controversial - they dont care how it 'affects your campaign', they care if it gets ratings. Russert specifically brings stuff up that is controversial and/or makes you look horrible. Thats just what he does.

[Politeia]

i'm sure if lincoln had been given access to a time machine so he could come to the future and see what the total costs would be, he'd probably buy the slaves their freedom. However, we live in reality, and in reality Lincoln thought it would be a "quick" war, lasting only a few days to a couple months......we all know that wasn't the case because it's history.

No, he wouldn't, because freeing the slaves was not his intention; as Tom DiLorenzo puts it, his intention was "using the slaves as political pawns in a war that was all about consolidating political power in Washington, D.C."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018025.html

He might have thought it would be a quick war, but in that he was disappointed. But he wanted a war, and it did accomplish what he desired -- which had nothing to do with freeing the slaves, about whom he couldn't have cared less.

[kmforpaul]

First off, i'm from Mississippi and i've lived all my life in the south.

But your question was "how do you even put a price on that". So yea, you have your figures and historical data because it happened......i'm sure if lincoln had been given access to a time machine so he could come to the future and see what the total costs would be, he'd probably buy the slaves their freedom. However, we live in reality, and in reality Lincoln thought it would be a "quick" war, lasting only a few days to a couple months......we all know that wasn't the case because it's history.

So yea, you can criticize lincoln.....feel free, no one is above criticism in my opinion, however, at the very least be realistic with an honest grasp on the situation. To answer your question very simply, "you can't put a price on that, neither could lincoln, and had you been alive in 1860....even if you were the smartest man alive, you wouldn't have any idea of the price of the alternative".

Yes, I agree with you on the fact that Lincoln was a great intelligent man. He kept the Union together - through one of the most devastating wars in our countries history. However, I would rather have a leader - Dr. Ron Paul - who can look back on history and see where we could have bettered ourselves. He realizes that it was actually possible to avoid a Civil War. If he is the only candidate who can realize how the Civil War could have been improved, or entirely avoided, I would like to see him - and only him - as the commander in chief; unlike McCain who would like to see us back in Vietnam...

[itsnobody]

Most historians know that the civil war was unnecessary, it also has nothing to do with slavery

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it" - Lincoln

[ChickenHawk]

The civil war was actually started as a result of tax issues.

That is at least as ridiculous as those that say the Civil War was all about slavery. There were many issues of contention between the North and South but the Civil War would almost certainly not have occurred if it had not been for slavery.

The war may not have been fought to end slavery but it was certainly fought because of slavery.

[slamhead]

I say who cares. Is a non-issue. They cannot beat him on the real issues so they invent others.

[AceNZ]

That is at least as ridiculous as those that say the Civil War was all about slavery. There were many issues of contention between the North and South but the Civil War would almost certainly not have occurred if it had not been for slavery.

The war may not have been fought to end slavery but it was certainly fought because of slavery.

I agree that war was fought because of slavery in the sense that slavery is what allowed the South to become as financially powerful as it was. However, the war was not started because of the North's objection to the institution of slavery. During his inaugural address, Lincoln said he would not interfere with slavery wherever it existed, and the south abolished African slave trade as part of the Confederate Constitution. Slavery was also legal in the north during the war.

The war was started because the north tried to impose heavy tariffs on the south. When the south refused to pay, the north responded by threatening to blockade southern ports -- which is an act of war.

From http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/pearlston1.html :


The Republican platform of 1860 called for higher tariffs; that was implemented by the new Congress in the Morill tariff of March 1861, signed by President Buchanan before Lincoln took the oath of office. It imposed the highest tariffs in US history, with over a 50% duty on iron products and 25% on clothing; rates averaged 47%. The nascent Confederacy followed with a low tariff, essentially creating a free-trade zone in the South. Prior to this "war of the tariffs", most Northern newspapers had called for peace through conciliation, but many now cried for war. The Philadelphia Press on 18 March 1861 demanded a blockade of Southern ports, because, if not, "a series of customs houses will be required on the vast inland border from the Atlantic to West Texas. Worse still, with no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers, will be subject to Southern tolls."

Also see: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/civilwar.html

[specsaregood]

Yes, I agree with you on the fact that Lincoln was a great intelligent man. He kept the Union together - through one of the most devastating wars in our countries history. However, I would rather have a leader - Dr. Ron Paul - who can look back on history and see where we could have bettered ourselves. He realizes that it was actually possible to avoid a Civil War. If he is the only candidate who can realize how the Civil War could have been improved, or entirely avoided, I would like to see him - and only him - as the commander in chief; unlike McCain who would like to see us back in Vietnam...

Exactly and the main point is. We should always question the need for war. Seriously, is it that bad to say, "maybe we could have worked out our differences without resorting to warfare?"

[ChickenHawk]

I agree that war was fought because of slavery in the sense that slavery is what allowed the South to become as financially powerful as it was. However, the war was not started because of the North's objection to the institution of slavery. During his inaugural address, Lincoln said he would not interfere with slavery wherever it existed, and the south abolished African slave trade as part of the Confederate Constitution. Slavery was also legal in the north during the war.

The war was started because the north tried to impose heavy tariffs on the south. When the south refused to pay, the north responded by threatening to blockade southern ports -- which is an act of war.

From http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/pearlston1.html :



Also see: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/civilwar.html


I don't think we are in major disagreement. It just annoys me when someone says the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. One on the articles that you link to explains how slavery was the root cause of the whole thing. It shouldn't surprise anyone that something so evil could lead to something so bad.

[Thomas Paine]

Just got back in town after being without internet access for almost a week. I saw the MTP interview and knew that Dr. Paul's remarks regarding Lincoln and the Civil War would generate some controversy.

The fact of the matter is that abolitionists were purchasing slaves from the South to emancipate them prior to the Civil War. (Even today, I have heard of some non-profit organizations purchasing slaves in the modern day slave trade to set them free.) Moreover, the possibility of the federal government purchasing the slaves from the South was discussed by the Founding Fathers. A sinking fund would have been established to purchase all the slaves during the lifetime of Benjamin Franklin to emancipate them and the federal government would have paid down the sinking fund over the years/decades.

The reason why the Founding Fathers did not do so at such time was because there was a widespread belief that slavery was about to die out in North America. Unfortunately, Cyrus McCormick and his cotton gin invention breathed new life into slavery (the inventor miscalculated that his invention would speed the end of slavery and not revive it). Hence, slavery was reinvigorated and remained a part of the Southern economy until the Civil War.

Something else Dr. Paul didn't have time to discuss on the MTP interview was at the outset of the Civil War, both sides strongly believed that the war would be over after one or two battles. (The European nations made the same miscalculation in WWI.) Nobody in 1860 predicted that the Civil War would last 4-5 years and that over 600,000 lives would be lost on the battlefields alone. Assume arguendo that Abraham Lincoln and Secessionist Leaders had crystal balls before the first shot was fired at Fort Sumter, would then Lincoln and the Secessionist Leaders have decided to continue their course of action or would they have negotiated an amicable settlement of the sectional differences between the North and the South and the slavery issue??? I think in hindsight Lincoln and the Secessionist Leaders would have negotiated a settlement.

[thomaspaine23]

Dr. Paul has been taking a lot of heat in the media for his statements on "Meet the Press" regarding Lincoln and the American Civil War.



The civil war was not fought about slavery, it was about taxation. The Federal government did not have an income tax at the time, it only had import duties and tariffs on imported goods.

The south (being agricultural) exported its goods to europe and took payment in finished goods. The south was paying roughly 90% of federal revenue, while 95% of federal money was spent in the north.

Right before secession the Republicans came to power in Congress. They were a regional party of the industrialized northeast at that time. One of their primary party planks was doubling the import tariff (which they did upon entering office). This was supposed to encourage people to buy american finished goods.

So you have the south paying roughly 90% of federal government revenue, having almost none of it spent for their benefit, and then taxes double on them. This was the cause of the war.

I recommend the book " When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams " It contains views of the war from both north,south and europe, including political cartoons of the time.

VERY eye opening....