I'm a Paul supporter, but this is one of those controversial things that makes me iffy about him. I get where he's coming from. He had Southern education about 50 years ago and that was biased, but he opposes wars in general, so he would rather try many solutions then send our young citizens to war. Either way, he has that same thinking that Lincoln had before the war and if Lincoln can be the guy that can think on his feet and is considered one of the best presidents, then Ron Paul can, too.
Of course, Paul fails to mention that the South was the aggressor in the Civil War. His defense of the position that northerners should've bought and freed the slaves buys into the assumption that Black people are property to be bought and sold. How people can still believe that he supports individual liberty and equality for ALL people boggles my mind. Libertarians, out of all people, should be opposed to him. And progressives are insane if they support this guy.
@n1llionaire I feel that it depends on the way you look at it. I could argue that with the secession of the South, that it was just the gun powder leading to the trigger that Ft. Sumter pulled. If Major Anderson didn't break the Union's agreement with the South, then the South probably wouldn't have felt the need to start firing at Ft. Sumter in retaliation and that what started it officially. I could also say that the South started it, but I'm running out of room.
Lincoln was a longtime supporter of buying the slaves in order to abolish slavery, going all the way back to his time as a Congressman in the late 1840s. However, slaveholders wouldn't sell their slaves. Lincoln even tried to push an emancipation through compensation bill in 1862. It went nowhere. Plus, South Carolina seceded BEFORE Lincoln was even sworn in, and fired first at Ft Sumter. This guy's insane, and shouldn't be president.
Not so simple, gentlemen. The slaves weren't for sale and slave owners weren't interested in selling--they were trying to preserve their evil institution, not opt out. Thomas Jefferson suggested the same scheme in his lifetime as a reasonable way out only to be scoffed at by his fellow Southern gentry. We lacked reasonable men in Congress, just as we do today.
If you bought all the slaves, some of the slave-owners would just raise the price so that you would have to pay enormous amounts of money. It would cost A LOT.
Ron Paul is right. Lincoln was actually a huge 'tyrant' suspendin habeas corpus which was deemed unconstitutional in ex parte merryman. Tried civilians in miltary tribunals. Deported an opposing member of Congress to the south. Closed shop many opposing newspapers. Arrested many newspaper publishers and state legislators for being political enemies. Used the army to interfer in elections. Issued the largest mass execution in US history with little to no probable cause. And the list continues.
Certain people would have just brought more slaves in. It is better to fight evil with economic means...giving incentives for freeing slaves &for not buying any more.
Couldn't the government buying and freeing slaves go completely the wrong way. For instance the surplus of slaves are bought freed so more slaves are brought in freed (rinse and repeat). Seems the slave traders would be happy steady income,slaves would be happy being free in a new land (possibly better than their home. The "north" would be over run with homeless jobless people not speaking english ultimately bringing the north's downfall. The south could have won if they had used this tactic
I also never said the Civil War was started because of slavery. That is a strawman if I ever saw one. Slavery was certainly an exaperating factor towards war though.
Ron Paul is a badass because his sensible policies are exactly what America needs right now. He is the only candidate that doesn't pander to the extremists of the two party system. His policies include things that neither extreme like.. Anti-war, anti-socialism, but his policies are the most economic friendly available right now.
Ron your a dumbass. The Union wouldn't have had enough money. If the North tried to do that the South would have still wanted to separate themselves from the North and the South wouldn't have sold all their slaves considering they really wanted them and used them as part of their economy. The point of the Civil War was to keep the country together. You think the country still would have stayed together if the North was getting slaves and then freeing them?
@TheRingo721 I'm pretty sure Ron Paul has probably thought about that, don't you think? There's obviously a little more to that answer than the few sentences Ron gave here.
The machinery to do the things the slaves were doing tons better than they were doing it came out not to long after the civil war. They could have spent money on that, developed it, bought the slaves, given them machines. Probably would have been cheaper than the war. It's like green energy and gas today..
@SHIBBYiPANDA The machinery came out a while after the war. Meaning that the North wouldn't have known about the machinery for years and years. If they hadn't known about the machinery then they wouldn't have bought the slaves and then given machinery. Right there your whole argument makes no sense. And lets say that even if the North had all the machines right then and there. The South still wouldn't have freed them. The South still would have made the slaves work. Ron Paul is dumbass.
@TheRingo721 The point isn't that the North knew about the machines.. My only point about the machines was that they were on there way out and once that happened slavery was obsolete. Of course no one knew about the machines I wasn't saying that.
How do you know the South wouldn't have freed the slaves? I think Ron's right saying that the North simply could have bought the slaves + some times worth of their wages instead of using that money to pay for people to go die.
@SHIBBYiPANDA The machines wouldn't have made a difference. The machines especially the ones from back then didn't replace that many people. The South still would have used slaves. And you ask me how I know the South wouldn't have freed the slaves. Well they thought blacks were sub human and they believed that they should be doing work for them. U think that once a couple machines came out then the South would suddenly decide that they dont need the sub humans? Thats stupid to think that.
@SHIBBYiPANDA The South relied on the slaves as a basis of their economy. Even if they began selling them to the North then the South would have just boughten and taken more slaves from Africa. Ron and your ideas are just plain stupid. you have absolutely no support or evidence that the South would have freed the slaves so I dont know why you would even think they would have.
@TheRingo721 I really don't know either, but Ron Paul is a badass so I'm trusting that his opinion is fairly well formed. I'd have to read some serious material to form a serious opinion on it. It's not to much of a stretch to think the US could have instigated some kind of program where they worked out some payment programs with the South slaveholders. Both sides had a lot to loose, and did loose a lot.
@SHIBBYiPANDA No it is a very long stretch to think that US could have created a program where they bought slaves. And the biggest reason for that, is that slavery wasn't the cause for the war. It played a big part in it but there other bigger reasons for it. I dont think that buying all the slaves would have fixed the problem of people wanting there state freedom. That was one of the major causes for the war and it had nothing to to with slavery. A lof of idiots that never read up on history
@SHIBBYiPANDA will foolishly say that the war was started because of slavery which is not true. Please tell me how buying all the slaves would have solved all the other problems that the South was having with the North? And you shouldn't just follow someone because you think hes a badass. You should read up on things so one, you can have your own opinion, and two so that you can actually have a debate with someone. And seriously you think Ron is a badass? Hes one of the biggest idiots in America
@TheRingo721 Thanks for the lecture. I have read a pretty fair amount about Ron Paul and couldn't disagree more. I haven't read up much on the Civil War and don't really have time for that so that's why I am refraining from debating that. Ron's not a historian either soo..
I think he's a badass because of his views on foreign policy, taxes, welfare, marriage, social programs, the drug war, torture, abortion, and the federal reserve.. I support his ideas on most of those with a view variances..
@SHIBBYiPANDA Then dont try and debate with me. Thats why you lost man. And by agreeing with Ron Paul then you are saying that slavery was the cause of the Civil war because that's what he thinks. So to take Ron's side on this is to agree to something that's wrong. Ron Paul is a failed politician that just needs to go away.
@TheRingo721 That is probably not what he thinks so YOU just lost the battle. He actually says in this video "the motivation behind the civil war had more to do with than just slavery" at 0:30 . So HA! And I'm NOT debating with you.. Like I said I don't know much about this issue so I respectfully decline to support a position besides that; Ron Paul is great, regardless of if he is right here, and what he says might not be unreasonable, since he is usually a pretty smart and reasonable guy.
@SHIBBYiPANDA Yes he does say that the motivation behind the Civil war was more than just slavery, however his idea of buying slaves wouldn't have worked because slavery wasn't the biggest issue. Him thinking that it would work is implying that it would have had to been the biggest issue. And yes you are debating with me. If you weren't trying to debate with me then you would have left and stopped commenting after your second comment when you lost.
@TheRingo721 Man you don't even know what you're talking about. I didn't loose, I refrained from further dialogue because I don't know any facts to support any possible hypothesis I COULD invent and this issue isn't even that important to me soo.... RP never said or implied what you're claiming he did. That's a simple strawman. It's crazy to think the arguments for his views could be given in the time he shared them, and it's not even important.. He seems like a pretty intelligent guy.
@SHIBBYiPANDA Umm yeah he did imply what I'm claiming he did. And Ron Paul is a dumbass. I can't see why you would support him, And yes you did loose. You started something when you didn't know about the subject. And you say "i'm not debating," or "I refrained from further dialogue" when both of those statements are wrong considering you kept going and commenting. If you were really done then you would just say, "yeah I lost im done now" and actually be done.
@TheRingo721 I don't know much about the subject and I doubt u do either. I'd be willing to bet ur just talking about of ur ass. I support Ron because his agenda and stated views is pretty much perfect and he has a great voting track record. What's to not like about Ron Paul??
@SHIBBYiPANDA If your willing to bet that then I hope your also willing to pay up because I know a lot about the subject. I definitely know more about it than Ron Paul. And his stated views aren't that great. And pretty much everything Ron sais is not to like
@SHIBBYiPANDA his whole idea of the civil war but just to name a few others he thinks that changing people attitudes in the country can change the whole world in a couple weeks and make a huge impact on fixing our country. We do have to change our attitudes to work on the country but to think that they will have an economical impact that quickly is a dumb statement. He believe that mall security does a better job than our soldiers. He has no understanding on how the pricing of oil works.
@SHIBBYiPANDA You welcome, I'd ask you what you like about Ron Paul, but you have already told me everything I will need to know and It is too early for me to decide who to vote for. It depends who's all running and also I will have to review them before I make any decisions.
@TheRingo721 well good luck with that, I'd encourage you to do some actual research and maybe do a little partying or something to get ur perspective in order and then look at Ron Paul again.. Nothing you said about his views paralleled reality at all. Ur supposed representation of his views was completely retarded and demonstrated a complete lack of analytical skills. It just didn't.. Change the world in a week? haha, ya right, I'm sure Ron said that.. Ur completely full of shit
@SHIBBYiPANDA he did say that. I will look for the video of him saying it and send you a link. And your telling me that I need to do some research? Your the one who knows nothing of the civil war and blindly sides with someone about it just because you like some of his other policies. And you say that I can't analyze Ron views. Why do you say that? Because I disagree with you. It's not hard to analyze things what's hard is to see when they are wrong. In this situation most of Ron's views are bad
@TheRingo721 No, I say you haven't analyzed his viewed I correctly because I just don't see your summaries of his views representing anything I've heard Ron Paul actually say and I've watched a fair amount of Ron Paul footage and have one of his books. And Ron's view of the civil war, is about as relevant to modern day politics as Mitt Romney's view that the Native Americans were a lost tribe of Israel, which even if RP is wrong is about 50x crazier.. Ron Paul's views are pretty much awesome..
@SHIBBYiPANDA you just sounded incredibly stupid right there.By saying that his view on the civil war are not relevant to modern day politics, you have just shown what a total idiot you are.Of course they are relevant.If someone thinks that the civil war could have been solved by buying all the slaves, that just shows how stupid they are and how they cannot view history correctly or view politics correctly /watch?v=zDM8US25xXg and don't try and warp his speech, listen to what hes actually saying
@TheRingo721 ya what was wrong with anything he said there? It certainly would change the world in a matter of weeks if the biggest power in the world changed it's foreign policy. It makes sense to say the price of oil would be well affected by our pulling out of the middle east, I can't say how much or which way because I don't know much about gas prices.. I didn't hear anything that sounded that implausible.. I would love for you to point out the errors in what he said there..
@SHIBBYiPANDA Having us begin to pull out of Iraq will not change the world in a few weeks. The proof is that we are and have been pulling out of Iraq for quite some time now and there have been no big changes. It's good we are pulling out but it's not causing what your god Ron Paul thinks.Oil prices aren't changing like he thought they would either. You and him both need to learn about the oil market. I see that you only hear certain parts of what Ron sais. You don't hear the important parts.
@TheRingo721 haha I think the same thing about you buddy.. And he didn't even mention Iraq in that video so.. He said he'd pull military out from all over the world.. How would that not increase gas prices and change world foreign policy? "oil prices aren't changing like he thought they would", what are you referring?? Of courses, he's stated he would pull the troops out Iraq immediately.. There is nothing stopping them from getting on boats and coming home right now except executive orders..
@SHIBBYiPANDA You can't pull out all the troops at once. Things don't work that way. Ron Paul would be great if things actually worked the way he and you think they do. And he does mention Iraq. You need to pay attention better. And he sais gas prices would go down! Not rise like your saying. hahaha I don't if you meant to say something else like prices would lower. But you need to fix your grammar then or watch the video closer. We have been pulling out of Iraq and things haven't been changing.
@TheRingo721 Okay, he said he'd bring the troops home from Iraq, ur right.. And I meant decrease.. I think the idea there is that removing sanctions from Iran and backing our navies off would decrease oil prices as the countries who had the oil felt less threatened.. And what's to stop troops from just getting on boats and coming home? Yeah it might take a couple trips or something but there's no reason i see that the troops couldn't have been home in six months is Obama had REALLY wanted them 2
@SHIBBYiPANDA You could have pulled out in six months but it would have been too drastic. It wouldn't have affected us but it would have greatly affected them to pull out that quickly. It would have worsened things there. And us pulling out has nothing to do with the price of oil. The pricing of oil doesn't go down because they feel less threatened. We could make the oil price go down by being there and taking control but that's about it. That's one of the few military ways to lower the pricing.
@SHIBBYiPANDA Because he apparently doesn't understand the pricing of oil. He thinks that if you can relate things to ending the war then idiots will think that he is right and that he understands everything. He's obviously gotten you to believe in him.
@TheRingo721 Well I don't believe things strongly without researching them, but so far, yep, I'm against what he's for even if he doesn't have a good reason for it. Personally I wouldn't withdraw as fast out of Iraq as Paul is claiming he desires too. But I'd def do it pretty fast. I'm also suspicious of the fed and the "corporations" so to speak. I'm against socialized stuff. I'd rather have it at the state level. The president's power needs to be decreased. Low spending is needed.. good deals
@TheRingo721 Mostly, yes. I haven't read his books so I don't know his arguments for everything he says he believes but his beliefs are not far from mine. Of all the candidates running, Paul seems to me the only one who would be the most fiscally conservative, the least "world police"ish, i'm not sure what I think about socialism or big gov, I think the drug war is retarded, I think the Fed needs more transparency and supervision. Paul seems to be for all these things.
@SHIBBYiPANDA oh okay. I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic in your last comment or something. I agree with some stuff with Ron but the majority of what he sais in my opinion is just plain stupid. Like I agree that the war on drugs is just plain stupid. But anyone with the slightest amount of intelligence should know that
@TheRingo721 If that's true how come we hear it from pretty much nobody in the mainstream political spotlight?? To me, the fact that Ron's willing to stand up in front of every republican on the planet and tell them how stupid the drug war is, when no one else will, says he cares about the truth to me.
What do you disagree with of Ron's policies? And what that he says is "just plain stupid"??
@SHIBBYiPANDA tons of people stand up and say the war on drugs is stupid.Famous people do, average people do and political people do.Ron is not anything special for saying something that millions of other people say. Your asking again what is so stupid about what Ron sais well go back some comments and read them again because I have already explained to you what's stupid about what he said. Right now your just trying to get things to go into a circle because you have no clue about whats going on
@TheRingo721 Well obama or romney will never say that... I'm sorry, my friend, I don't mean to go in a circle. You said Ron didn't understand how oil prices work, that we couldn't "change the world by changing people's attitudes" which is only half of what Ron said there that I don't see anything wrong with, and you said that his views on the Civil War are wrong..... Great, but, as far as I can see, those issues don't change that his declared policies(some of which I listed below) are awesome...
@SHIBBYiPANDA The only big policy i have seen you list was his stance on drugs. I agree with him on how stupid the drug war is. You've said that he stands up to people and sais the truth but a lot of what he said is stupid. The parts that he actually is smart on like the drug war, well millions of people say the same things and have the same stance on it. That doesn't make him any smarter or better than them if they are saying the same things. Ron is just a guy with many misses and a few hits
@TheRingo721 I named some issues on which we clearly agree earlier. Are you familiar with any of his views about foreign intervention or the health care systems? He for free trade and non-involvement in the internal affairs of other countries. Or putting the departments of education or agriculture on the state level? Or moving towards reestablishing a gold standard of some kind(which Alan Greenspan has recently supported)? Or doing some damage to the Fed's power? All sound good to me
@SHIBBYiPANDA I am familiar with that stuff. I agree with a lot of it The thing is though is that it doesn't take a genius to have those views. There are many other people and politicians that have the same views. The problem with Ron is that he just is stupid on other things. It's good that he has those views like bringing back a gold standard and bringing education to state level. I agree with that but he just isn't the kind of guy that I would want as president because of how stupid he can be
@TheRingo721 well I disagree with that conclusion.. I do think there are smarter people, all over, who could do a better job if they knew the relevant material but surely we can agree that of the candidates for the GOP nomination, he would be shittons better for the world than almost everyone else in the race.. Surely we could agree that he's the most consistent and seems to be convicted about his views.. You're right that it doesn't take a genius to have his views, but not many in politics do.
@SHIBBYiPANDA I can partly agree that he is better than the other people running right now, but I cannot fully agree until it gets closer to the election. As of now I will say that he is better than the other candidates but that can certainly change as much as it can stay the same. And yes he is very consistent with his views.
@TheRingo721 Why can't you agree more fully until it gets closer to election time?? I'd give anything to help him win the fucking GOP nomination.. Unless there's someone else out there whose got similar policies to Ron Paul I don't know about.. I'm thinking of putting up some signs pretty soon for him..
@SHIBBYiPANDA I can't agree fully until the election time because then I would a fool like Ron can be. I have to pay attention until it's close to election time because people like to change around then . A lot of candidates will check the numbers and if they are not to their liking then they sometimes change stances or start other things or come up with new ideas to help raise their chances of being elected. Look at Obama, he had bad Latino ratings so he came up with the new immigration law.
@TheRingo721 Do you think Ron would do something like that? It seems one of the biggest things going for him is the fact that he has been more consistent then most anybody else in DC over his career because he actually believes in what he says instead of being a popularity whore seeking to tickle the imagination of stupid public like everyone else.. I'm buying a bumber sticker currently that says something like "Ron Paul: Because he's honest" or something lol..
@SHIBBYiPANDA I'm not saying Ron would change but another candidate may change. I'm not saying anyone will and I'm not saying that just cause they do change doesn't mean that they will really change. I'm just saying that I can't be on board till the end.
Ron Paul may have some valid points about Lincoln's overall ideology, but I disagree with his condemning of the Civil War. Let's not forget, though, that the GOP wasn't founded by conservative ideologues; it was founded by abolitionists, who were considered quite liberal for their time.
@zombiefitnezz Once the slaves were bought and freed, they would have little choice other than to work on the farms of the plantations/owners they had just been freed from. BUT, they would have to be paid WAGES. See how that would work now?
" What about 100 years of lynchings in the south?" I'm pretty sure just being free would be a significant step forward at that point.
I had an argument with a guy with him insisting the South wouldnt have sold their slaves and that we would go bankrupt in the process. My argument was that it was cheaper than war especially when u consider the cost of lives and that if u could get 1/3 of the South on board then it would be enough to unify . Ideally i think it would have been best if the north did not try to change the South and let morality take its natural course cuz even after we freed them they still faced many injustices.
@zombiefitnezz you don't understand economics. If a fair price were paid for the slaves, it would have been enough to hire workers for the same labor. The lynchings happened AFTER the Civil War because of the resentment because of the Civil War. You wouldn't lynch your property.
The slaveowners wouldn't have given up the slaves for a "fair price." They believed it was their God-given right to have slaves. There's no way that Lincoln could have bought slaves at a price that would have been cheaper than the cost of the Civil War.
@Edgehead10075 The slaveowners viewed their slaves as property. The majority of the world, including the southerners knew slavery was wrong. In fact the Confederate Constitution banned the international slave trade. But the slaveowners had bought their slaves like any other investment and they weren't giving them up for nothing.
what stopping me from getting more slaves and selling them to the state again? The way I understand it, that plan was not going to end slavery it was going to make it a more profitable business.
@jarinthemood2000, it was illegal to import new slaves from Africa and it was illegal to enslave free blacks. You compensate the slave owners for their loss of "property" and mandate that all children born to any slave after a certain date would be free. In time, either all slaves would have been bought and freed or they would have died out. This strategy worked perfectly well in England, wiki the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.
@Edgehead10075, how do you know that? What made the U.S. situation so different from the English? By the 18th century slavery was already in decline due to the Industrial Revolution. In an economy where tradesmen, craftsmen, technicians, and skilled laborers grew in ever more importance, the demand and sustainability of dependent laborer decreased.
But my previous post was about the manner in which slavery ended, the murder of 1 innocent person, let alone 650,000 was immoral & unnecessary.
In Britain, the slaveowners were told, "Sell your slaves, or you're going to jail." The slaveowners there didn't have the political power to revolt. In America, they most certainly had the political power to revolt. They would have just said, "Fuck you" if told to sell their slaves.
There was no murder. It was war killing that was totally justified. The South had no right to secede, no matter what Ron Paul says, and they had no right to take over Ft. Sumter.
Stop blaming the good guys who ended slavery in America.
Besides that, Lincoln would have even kept slavery legal to keep the country united, and slavery wasn't the only reason why the South seceded either. Tariffs were another reason.
Stop blaming the good guys who ended slavery in America.
Besides that, Lincoln would have even kept slavery legal to keep the country united, and slavery wasn't the only reason why the South seceded either. Tariffs were another reason. The South seceding was unavoidable, and most people don't agree with Paul's view that we should have just let them secede.
@Edgehead10075, I never said slavery was the only reason for the CW.
I am arguing against the idea that it is moral to murder 650,000 innocent people to end slavery.
Good people don't murder!
Now you seem to hold the position that they were not murdered exclusively over the issue of slavery, I agree. But seeing as I am opposed to murder on principle, those reasons are irrelevant to me.
I also don't care what most people think, their opinion is irrelevant to the morality of the situation.
@Edgehead10075, I oppose the wars but I would not have done nothing.
Like Ron Paul I would have supported the Congress issuing letters of marque and reprisal against the orchestrators of the attacks.
I also would have supported the Congress abolishing the policies that prompted the attacks. (i.e. ending aid to foreign dictators; ending the economic sanctions against Iraq that killed 500,000+ children; and removing the military installation in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia)
@Edgehead10075, I think you are misunderstanding me. I never said war is always wrong. Everybody has a right to defend themselves. As long that in doing so they don't violate the equal rights of others.
I hold that murdering innocent people is always wrong, even if done by governments. How many people would you murder to avenge a slain family member or friend?
As to your question, FDR provoked Japan to attack the U.S. in order to get into the war with the Germans. No it was not a just war.
Okay, but when were innocent people murdered in the Civil War? Maybe there were (My recollection of history is rusty.), but soldiers fighting soldiers isn't murder.
I understand your position on FDR, as I've heard other people say the same thing. However, I do believe that, whether or not you agree with FDR's boycott of Japan, a nation has a right to its own trade policy, which includes not trading with a particular nation. I don't believe that Japan's attack of Pearl Harbor was justified.
Once Japan attacked us, we had every right to declare war on them, which we did.
I've heard many people say that we were wrong in dropping two atomic bombs on Japan because of the civilian casualties. However, I accept the explanation that civilians weren't targeted and that the bombs targeted weapons factories. Collateral damage is a sad part of war but not necessarily murder.
@Edgehead10075 That's not what Ron is saying. If there were no slaves, the problem with secession probably wouldn't have existed. By being "bought off" or if you prefer, reimbursed for their investment, the Southerners would have been much less likely to go to the extreme of war. Of course, we can't say for sure that the war wouldn't have happened anyway, only that it would have been less likely. As it happened, the Southerners felt they had been left little choice, but to go to war.
They wouldn't have accepted the payout. It's really that simple. Whatever the government would have offered, the slaveowners would have made a lot more money by still having slaves. Nothing could have been done to stop the Civil War other than just letting the South secede, which the Supreme Court later ruled that they had no right to do so.
@Edgehead10075 More money yes, but would they have thought it was "enough more" to 1st) split the country (which couldn't have been an easy decision for anyone) 2nd) be worth getting your head blown off and 3rd) losing everything you had. By this I mean, A) your not going to be there to watch over your farm, your crops would probably suffer. B) The Union might take your property and toss you in prison if they won. There are probably other things I haven't thought of. You seem really sure. Why?
Well, they proved that they were willing to take that risk though.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't buying the slaves proposed at some point in our history? I'm pretty sure that the plan failed. I would be surprised if the thought of buying the slaves' freedom didn't come across anybody's mind during that time.
@Edgehead10075 I searched the issue and couldn't find anything on a proposed plan to buy the slaves, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one. I'm interested in the war, read a few books, articles and watched some tv shows, but I'm no big time C.W. buff. If there was no offer, there should have been. The plantation owners may have lived in the Big House, but I'd bet most owed a lot of money. Getting a lump sum payoff may have made all the difference in the world. Who knows?
@peng1965a Google "Lincoln plan to buy slaves". He wanted to buy them for $400 each and ship them back to Africa. That would have cost at least $1.6 billion, but the slaveholders probably wouldn't have sold their slaves for that cheap.
What makes you think the slaveholders owed money? They were filthy stinking rich. The South, as a whole, almost held a monopoly on cotton. They could charge the world pretty much anything they wanted, and with slaves, their overhead was minimal.
@KayBeeEee1983 Part 1) O.K. I read it, A) According to the article, when the plan was concieved the war had already been going on a YEAR. Of course it wouldn't work then. A buyout plan would have to have been initiated BEFORE the war started for it to have any chance of success. B) Sending the slaves back to Africa wouldn't be in the best interest of plantation owners because, howerer things turned out, they would still need them as laborers, even if they had to pay them wages.
@peng1965a (A) Good point. I forgot he proposed that during the war. I was thinking he proposed it even before he was elected president.
(B) You're right. It was a catch-22 for them, like the saying about women, "Can't live with them, can't live without them" except not funny. But it was the South's own fault. Slavery forced all the poor white southerners to the west/north because there were no jobs in the south. So there were no white laborers to take the slaves' places.
@KayBeeEee1983 Part 2) Sure a lot of them were filthy rich, some probably not so much. There were smaller ones, bigger ones and gigantic ones (plantations). I'd guess the smaller ones had a harder time than the really big ones. We're talking hundreds or thousands of acers, dozens of buildings, slaves, equipment, etc...How many owned everything outright? How many owed money to banks? Crop failures, floods, drought, bad management, etc...Your good at looking stuff up, see what you can find.
@peng1965a If they ever needed money, they could just sell their slaves. Not to the government, but to slave traders or other plantations. What kind of buildings do plantations need? Slave quarters and a barn? What else? What equipment do they need? A cotton gin?
@KayBeeEee1983 Oh, I glanced through the "universal portal of all knowlege" (Wikipedia) on plantations. There's more to them than I would have thought. If you sell your slaves...what are you going to do next season? I do know a little about business...nothing if foolproof, you can be swimming in money one moment, and screwed the next. My guess is plantations were no different. I've never really read much on plantations. The Wiki article was worth reading though, interesting stuff.
@peng1965a "If you sell your slaves...what are you going to do next season?"
Do what the plantation owners did after slavery was abolished: Hire sharecroppers. They're basically the same thing as slaves, except you can't rape/torture/kill them and they can leave if they want to.
@KayBeeEee1983 If we talked to someone who really knew his stuff, he could give us examples of such things happening. There were probably even a few plantation owners who were against slavery and did hire sharecropers. This is something that never crossed my mind until I watched Ron talk about it. But, that's Ron, 1/2 of what he says is brilliant, the other 1/2 sounds goofy until you research it and really think it through. Then you think, yeah, sure, why not?
@KayBeeEee1983 Well...that's what I thought, because that's what I always heard. Then for some reason I watched some of his videos...You're fun to bullshit with....got anything specific you want to talk about concerning ol' Ronnnie?
@KayBeeEee1983 It's just simply one mans opinion that he mentioned in passing and people were interested and kept asking him about it. He doesn't campaign on the issue or anything. I still don't see anything partricularly wrong with what he says, A buyout was an option that wasn't tried at the right time. The whole thing is largely irrelevant unless someone invents a time machine. Have you ever watched any of his videos on current topics (current wars, economy, trade, etc..)?
@peng1965a A buyout was not ever a real option. It would have cost at least like $3 billion, which is about $60 billion today. It's not irrelevant because it shows he's a dumbass who pretends he knows what he's talking about when he is totally clueless. Maybe he's not that much different from any other politician.
@KayBeeEee1983 Obviously it WAS a real option, Lincoln was prepared to do it a year into the war. So, that kinda blows both the first and second parts of your statement. Got anything that doesn't relate to this particular issue? I think we've gone as far as we can on this one.
@peng1965a Since Lincoln didn't propose that until the war started, he wasn't talking to the 11 states that seceded. Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware had about 10% of the slaves in the USA. And he wasn't proposing to buy them all, just the ones whose owners wanted to sell them.
@KayBeeEee1983 Yeah, I looked back over the article. You're right. So that means, there was never ANY attempt to buyout the southerners. And I would be tempted to disagree with you that a buyout was impossible, since the war cost over 6 billion. If your figure of about 3 billion is correct, a buyout would have saved the U.S. about 3 billion. I'm sure it would have been a hard sell trying to finance, durring peacetime, a 3 billion buyout. Highly improbable, not impossible. Nice point though,
@peng1965a I don't think I ever said it was impossible. If I did, I meant politically impossible. There's no way the feds would have authorized that. The war may have ended up costing $6 billion but at the start, very few politicians thought it would last more than 90 days.
@KayBeeEee1983 I'll have to agree with you on that. It's an interesting topic and I learned a little bit. It makes you think. There's a lot of great "what if" historical topics. Pauls opinion is understandable, being a doctor and being anti-war. I still think he is the most different of all the other canadates, the rest just seem to be for keeping everything rolling along, (more or less) just like it is. Even Mr. "Change". We need someone who will shake things up.
@RevBillyRayCollins We weren't an empire when the constitution was formed. Even if we disregard the overseas territories, there are 48 states in the contiguous US. Having a government controlled by 48 different entities is impossible. We're too big for a confederation. We need a powerful central government. Not an "ALL POWERFUL" central government, but it needs to have a lot of power.
@KayBeeEee1983 Im not talking about a confederation. Thats not are style of govt. We should go back to how the country was run in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Where there was true federalsim, not like today where the feds hold all the cards.
@RevBillyRayCollins When did you drop out of school? You write "are" when you should write "our". You write "should of" when you should write "should've". You write "your" when you should write "you're". You even write "right" when you should write "write". I have never ever seen anyone on youtube make all 4 of those mistakes. Is that intentional? Can anyone be that stupid?
@KayBeeEee1983 Now your complaining about my grammar and spelling? Is that all you have left to combat me with? I admit I make little mistakes like those, but really, grow up and discuss the subject at hand.
@RevBillyRayCollins I'm not complaining. I'm making fun of you. I'm done speaking to you like an equal because you're not. You are a bigot. You just ignore the things I say that you can't refute. You're a typical ignorant inbred racist confederate worm with no integrity. Nothing more.
@KayBeeEee1983 I ignore the many statements you say that dont have any documented evidence to back them up which for the most part has been the majority of what you have been posting. I have never once thought of someone as less equal than myself, I thought most people felt the same way but I guess I was wrong.
@RevBillyRayCollins Why don't you tell me to prove what I say when I say it, instead of just ignoring it? Probably because you're full of shit, and like I said, you just ignore information you don't like.
@KayBeeEee1983 Ive told you to prove many things numerous times and you either ignore me or take forever with answering it. Like where in the Const is unilateral secession illegal, that took you forever to come up with a bullshit answer.
@RevBillyRayCollins You're like a religious nutjob who asks "Prove God doesn't exist!" Of course the Constitution doesn't say unilateral secession is illegal. I told you over and over and over again that it doesn't have to say it.
@KayBeeEee1983 And your only justification is that they signed the paper thus its illegal. How could something be illegal if it isnt actually mentioned? If there were no written laws against killing someone, and someone decided to kill someone, but then that guy gets charged with murder and the prosecuters say because murder was not actually written down as being legal we can charge you with murder anyway. But it was also not written down as being illegal. Wheres the sense in that?
@RevBillyRayCollins It's not illegal, it's illegitimate, it's null. It's like gay marriage in texas. You can have a ceremony and buy rings and change your names, but the government simply doesn't recognize it. You're not going to go to jail for getting married to another guy.
@KayBeeEee1983 If its not illegal or legal, then someone has to do something about it. The problem however is that any power not belonging to the feds belongs to the states and the people, look at the 10 amend. Secession falls in that category.
@RevBillyRayCollins Do I really have to explain this again? You're a dunce, completely incapable of learning. The southern states captured federal arsenals, post offices, courthouses, and forts. That's illegal. What's so hard to understand about this?
@RevBillyRayCollins I'm going to go through all of your comments, paste all the idiotic things you've said into a word file, & show it to people. There are so many funny things you said. Like when you asked why Lincoln didn't give the confederacy what it wanted, in order to avoid bloodshed, & when you quoted Lincoln's "of the people by the people for the people" line of the Gettysburg address, thinking it came from (I'm guessing) Jefferson & the Declaration of Independence.
@KayBeeEee1983 No you dumbass, why do you think I said remember that GREAT QUOTE? Because it talks about a govt of the people... and supports why the govt works for us AND it was said by Abraham Lincoln. Abe supports my claims there.
If you are of the belief that states don't have the right to secede, you can't just stand there and do nothing if states secede from the union and take over military forts. In Lincoln's mind, letting them secede would have set a very bad precedent, so he came to the conclusion that war was necessary.
@Edgehead10075, Is it acceptable to murder people? Yes or no? You don't seem to address this point. Morality is universal, those in government are bound by the same moral laws as you and I. If you, like me, believe murder is immoral then the reasons why somebody justifies their actions are irrelevant.
.
The Constitution no where forbids secession. No State would have joined if they knew that they could never leave and that they would be invaded for trying to do so.
Killing soldiers in self-defense is not murder. However, the shelling and burning of civilian cities certainly is, & these acts were done by the North in defense of the "Union" against the South. Were they justified?
Regarding secession: SCOTUS represents the Federal government, its opinion is biased . Furthermore, to deny the right to secession is to reject the principle of government by consent of the people, as well as to deny the legitimacy of the U.S. government (i.e. American revolution).
@jarinthemood2000 I think the government would have said that slavery will end but they would pay a fair price for them so the incentive would be there to sell and the institution would be abolished. Slavery was ended that way in Washington D.C.
They wouldn't have sold their slaves, and the government saying that "slavery will end" = secession. Sorry, but there was no other way around the issue, except to just let the South secede, which is another discussion. Ron Paul is totally wrong.
Unconventional Wisdom. Ron Paul is a man of peace and principle. Judge a tree by it's fruit. Please dig farther into this man. Our country needs his philosophy and leadership.
As with most wars, the US Civil War had multiple causes. The overriding cause, however, was the South's decision to secede from the Union in order to form a Confederacy WHERE SLAVERY WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTELY PROTECTED RIGHT. That's the common denominator in the state constitutions of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc. The secessionists never tried to hide their true intentions. Unlike latter day historical revisionists.
The only reason he called for the ending of slavery wasn't because he "cared about black people", He did it to keep the union as a whole... Lincoln hated states rights, and he hated the constitution.
Don't try to make Lincoln to be some kind of Jessie Jackson. Lincoln wanted to send them back to Africa, not free them and give them the same rights as other people like our constitution states.
@TheMango121 I agree with the first sentence. Lincoln understood that if he didn't abolish slavery, another secession crisis would inevitably happen in the future. Anyway, regardless of his personal feelings, Lincoln was not about to forcibly deport the freed slaves to South America or Africa.
As for, "Lincoln hated states rights and ... the constitution," what proof exists to support this extreme view? A letter? A diary? The states rights crowd strikes me as totally myopic anyway :P
@dbjkatz Abraham Lincoln was a Tyrant! watch?v=4CwkG2C5sAc
If you want some scholarly support for the claims in the video link above then you can buy the books: "The Real Lincoln" and/or "Lincoln Unmasked" by Thomas DiLorenzo. You can find a used copy on Amazon.
Here is an hour interview of him discussing his work on C-SPAN. watch?v=nbFty9nZUac
You're right about Lincoln, but so what? He would have kept slavery legal to keep the union whole, but that went out the window when the South seceded.
I wonder how much money Mr. Paul thinks it would have taken to buy the slaves. Stupid people think money can just fix everything from a family torn apart by divorce, to a wrongful death, to slavery. Also, plantation owners didn't deserve to be reimbursed from their loss of slaves. They were a bunch of racist pricks holding people against their own will and reserving civil rights for a select minority. They didn't need compensation. That's not how you solve the problem of racism.
If people followed Dr. PAUL's philosophy of liberty, there would have been no slavery in the first place. Democrats and Republicans are the slave owners.
In a further twist of irony, Ron Paul rants to no end that paper money is worthless and the US needs to go back to a gold standard. So what's his (fantastical) solution to slavery? Print money and pay off the slaveowners.
@Limbach17 What he's saying is that....Fighting the war cost far, far, far more than it would have cost for the Gov. just to buy & free the slaves. Plantation owners didn't deserve reimbursement...Yes... from a moral standpoint, but if "paying them off" prevented war at a much, much lower cost, then that's what should have been done.
And don't....don't forget, that slaves in the U.S. were often the former slaves of other black tribes in Africa, captured by blacks to be sold to slave traders.
I'm a Paul supporter, but this is one of those controversial things that makes me iffy about him. I get where he's coming from. He had Southern education about 50 years ago and that was biased, but he opposes wars in general, so he would rather try many solutions then send our young citizens to war. Either way, he has that same thinking that Lincoln had before the war and if Lincoln can be the guy that can think on his feet and is considered one of the best presidents, then Ron Paul can, too.
OfficialIT 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Of course, Paul fails to mention that the South was the aggressor in the Civil War. His defense of the position that northerners should've bought and freed the slaves buys into the assumption that Black people are property to be bought and sold. How people can still believe that he supports individual liberty and equality for ALL people boggles my mind. Libertarians, out of all people, should be opposed to him. And progressives are insane if they support this guy.
JonathanM00r3 1 month ago
The South started the war, not the North.
n1llionaire 1 month ago
@n1llionaire I feel that it depends on the way you look at it. I could argue that with the secession of the South, that it was just the gun powder leading to the trigger that Ft. Sumter pulled. If Major Anderson didn't break the Union's agreement with the South, then the South probably wouldn't have felt the need to start firing at Ft. Sumter in retaliation and that what started it officially. I could also say that the South started it, but I'm running out of room.
OfficialIT 2 weeks ago
Why doesn't he also suggest we should have just paid off the British & stayed colonists? I'm just not tracking this guy at all.
stephenmatlock 1 month ago
That makes no sense. We fought the war because the south wanted to establish their own country, slavery was icing on the cake.
Buttnut105 1 month ago
ok so he is a crazy ass liberterian but he is honest and ocassionaly pragmatic....
only problem is liberterianism tends to be to much of a dogma...
personaly i which politics was more sciense then religion.
people just think they have a magic formula and want to throw out all other ideas and ignore anything that speaks agains theire hypotasis...
of coarse ron is at leas honest unlike basicaly almost all other poleticians on either side
ZerqTM 2 months ago
@ZerqTM lol
TurtleBankRobber 2 weeks ago
Lincoln was a longtime supporter of buying the slaves in order to abolish slavery, going all the way back to his time as a Congressman in the late 1840s. However, slaveholders wouldn't sell their slaves. Lincoln even tried to push an emancipation through compensation bill in 1862. It went nowhere. Plus, South Carolina seceded BEFORE Lincoln was even sworn in, and fired first at Ft Sumter. This guy's insane, and shouldn't be president.
JMShuffield 2 months ago
Comment removed
JMShuffield 2 months ago
Not so simple, gentlemen. The slaves weren't for sale and slave owners weren't interested in selling--they were trying to preserve their evil institution, not opt out. Thomas Jefferson suggested the same scheme in his lifetime as a reasonable way out only to be scoffed at by his fellow Southern gentry. We lacked reasonable men in Congress, just as we do today.
aarfeld 3 months ago
If you bought all the slaves, some of the slave-owners would just raise the price so that you would have to pay enormous amounts of money. It would cost A LOT.
ljietuvis 3 months ago
@ljietuvis It would certainly cost a lot less than 600,000 American lives.
UndoneEagle 3 months ago
Haha Ron Paul is so awesome! Vote for this guy, people.
HammerOvThor 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul is right. Lincoln was actually a huge 'tyrant' suspendin habeas corpus which was deemed unconstitutional in ex parte merryman. Tried civilians in miltary tribunals. Deported an opposing member of Congress to the south. Closed shop many opposing newspapers. Arrested many newspaper publishers and state legislators for being political enemies. Used the army to interfer in elections. Issued the largest mass execution in US history with little to no probable cause. And the list continues.
RevBillyRayCollins 4 months ago
The civil war was not just about slavery, in fact the civil war was about how much power the high government should have.
theFLCLguy 4 months ago
Certain people would have just brought more slaves in. It is better to fight evil with economic means...giving incentives for freeing slaves &for not buying any more.
elishebabb 6 months ago
Couldn't the government buying and freeing slaves go completely the wrong way. For instance the surplus of slaves are bought freed so more slaves are brought in freed (rinse and repeat). Seems the slave traders would be happy steady income,slaves would be happy being free in a new land (possibly better than their home. The "north" would be over run with homeless jobless people not speaking english ultimately bringing the north's downfall. The south could have won if they had used this tactic
jc7997aj 7 months ago
@jc7997aj they could just make laws to stop that kind of fraud.
SHIBBYiPANDA 7 months ago
I also never said the Civil War was started because of slavery. That is a strawman if I ever saw one. Slavery was certainly an exaperating factor towards war though.
Ron Paul is a badass because his sensible policies are exactly what America needs right now. He is the only candidate that doesn't pander to the extremists of the two party system. His policies include things that neither extreme like.. Anti-war, anti-socialism, but his policies are the most economic friendly available right now.
SHIBBYiPANDA 7 months ago
Because making the slave owners rich beyond their wildest dreams would have been awesome, right? What could go wrong?
Saerain 7 months ago
Ron your a dumbass. The Union wouldn't have had enough money. If the North tried to do that the South would have still wanted to separate themselves from the North and the South wouldn't have sold all their slaves considering they really wanted them and used them as part of their economy. The point of the Civil War was to keep the country together. You think the country still would have stayed together if the North was getting slaves and then freeing them?
TheRingo721 7 months ago
@TheRingo721 I'm pretty sure Ron Paul has probably thought about that, don't you think? There's obviously a little more to that answer than the few sentences Ron gave here.
The machinery to do the things the slaves were doing tons better than they were doing it came out not to long after the civil war. They could have spent money on that, developed it, bought the slaves, given them machines. Probably would have been cheaper than the war. It's like green energy and gas today..
SHIBBYiPANDA 7 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA The machinery came out a while after the war. Meaning that the North wouldn't have known about the machinery for years and years. If they hadn't known about the machinery then they wouldn't have bought the slaves and then given machinery. Right there your whole argument makes no sense. And lets say that even if the North had all the machines right then and there. The South still wouldn't have freed them. The South still would have made the slaves work. Ron Paul is dumbass.
TheRingo721 7 months ago
@TheRingo721 The point isn't that the North knew about the machines.. My only point about the machines was that they were on there way out and once that happened slavery was obsolete. Of course no one knew about the machines I wasn't saying that.
How do you know the South wouldn't have freed the slaves? I think Ron's right saying that the North simply could have bought the slaves + some times worth of their wages instead of using that money to pay for people to go die.
SHIBBYiPANDA 7 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA The machines wouldn't have made a difference. The machines especially the ones from back then didn't replace that many people. The South still would have used slaves. And you ask me how I know the South wouldn't have freed the slaves. Well they thought blacks were sub human and they believed that they should be doing work for them. U think that once a couple machines came out then the South would suddenly decide that they dont need the sub humans? Thats stupid to think that.
TheRingo721 7 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA The South relied on the slaves as a basis of their economy. Even if they began selling them to the North then the South would have just boughten and taken more slaves from Africa. Ron and your ideas are just plain stupid. you have absolutely no support or evidence that the South would have freed the slaves so I dont know why you would even think they would have.
TheRingo721 7 months ago
@TheRingo721 I really don't know either, but Ron Paul is a badass so I'm trusting that his opinion is fairly well formed. I'd have to read some serious material to form a serious opinion on it. It's not to much of a stretch to think the US could have instigated some kind of program where they worked out some payment programs with the South slaveholders. Both sides had a lot to loose, and did loose a lot.
SHIBBYiPANDA 7 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA No it is a very long stretch to think that US could have created a program where they bought slaves. And the biggest reason for that, is that slavery wasn't the cause for the war. It played a big part in it but there other bigger reasons for it. I dont think that buying all the slaves would have fixed the problem of people wanting there state freedom. That was one of the major causes for the war and it had nothing to to with slavery. A lof of idiots that never read up on history
TheRingo721 7 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA will foolishly say that the war was started because of slavery which is not true. Please tell me how buying all the slaves would have solved all the other problems that the South was having with the North? And you shouldn't just follow someone because you think hes a badass. You should read up on things so one, you can have your own opinion, and two so that you can actually have a debate with someone. And seriously you think Ron is a badass? Hes one of the biggest idiots in America
TheRingo721 7 months ago
@TheRingo721 Thanks for the lecture. I have read a pretty fair amount about Ron Paul and couldn't disagree more. I haven't read up much on the Civil War and don't really have time for that so that's why I am refraining from debating that. Ron's not a historian either soo..
I think he's a badass because of his views on foreign policy, taxes, welfare, marriage, social programs, the drug war, torture, abortion, and the federal reserve.. I support his ideas on most of those with a view variances..
SHIBBYiPANDA 7 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Then dont try and debate with me. Thats why you lost man. And by agreeing with Ron Paul then you are saying that slavery was the cause of the Civil war because that's what he thinks. So to take Ron's side on this is to agree to something that's wrong. Ron Paul is a failed politician that just needs to go away.
TheRingo721 7 months ago
@TheRingo721 That is probably not what he thinks so YOU just lost the battle. He actually says in this video "the motivation behind the civil war had more to do with than just slavery" at 0:30 . So HA! And I'm NOT debating with you.. Like I said I don't know much about this issue so I respectfully decline to support a position besides that; Ron Paul is great, regardless of if he is right here, and what he says might not be unreasonable, since he is usually a pretty smart and reasonable guy.
SHIBBYiPANDA 7 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Yes he does say that the motivation behind the Civil war was more than just slavery, however his idea of buying slaves wouldn't have worked because slavery wasn't the biggest issue. Him thinking that it would work is implying that it would have had to been the biggest issue. And yes you are debating with me. If you weren't trying to debate with me then you would have left and stopped commenting after your second comment when you lost.
TheRingo721 7 months ago
@TheRingo721 Man you don't even know what you're talking about. I didn't loose, I refrained from further dialogue because I don't know any facts to support any possible hypothesis I COULD invent and this issue isn't even that important to me soo.... RP never said or implied what you're claiming he did. That's a simple strawman. It's crazy to think the arguments for his views could be given in the time he shared them, and it's not even important.. He seems like a pretty intelligent guy.
SHIBBYiPANDA 7 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Umm yeah he did imply what I'm claiming he did. And Ron Paul is a dumbass. I can't see why you would support him, And yes you did loose. You started something when you didn't know about the subject. And you say "i'm not debating," or "I refrained from further dialogue" when both of those statements are wrong considering you kept going and commenting. If you were really done then you would just say, "yeah I lost im done now" and actually be done.
TheRingo721 7 months ago
@TheRingo721 I don't know much about the subject and I doubt u do either. I'd be willing to bet ur just talking about of ur ass. I support Ron because his agenda and stated views is pretty much perfect and he has a great voting track record. What's to not like about Ron Paul??
SHIBBYiPANDA 7 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA If your willing to bet that then I hope your also willing to pay up because I know a lot about the subject. I definitely know more about it than Ron Paul. And his stated views aren't that great. And pretty much everything Ron sais is not to like
TheRingo721 7 months ago
@TheRingo721 What's wrong with any of his views?
SHIBBYiPANDA 7 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA his whole idea of the civil war but just to name a few others he thinks that changing people attitudes in the country can change the whole world in a couple weeks and make a huge impact on fixing our country. We do have to change our attitudes to work on the country but to think that they will have an economical impact that quickly is a dumb statement. He believe that mall security does a better job than our soldiers. He has no understanding on how the pricing of oil works.
TheRingo721 7 months ago
@TheRingo721 well that really told me how much you know, right there. Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for. Who are you voting for exactly?
SHIBBYiPANDA 7 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA You welcome, I'd ask you what you like about Ron Paul, but you have already told me everything I will need to know and It is too early for me to decide who to vote for. It depends who's all running and also I will have to review them before I make any decisions.
TheRingo721 7 months ago
@TheRingo721 well good luck with that, I'd encourage you to do some actual research and maybe do a little partying or something to get ur perspective in order and then look at Ron Paul again.. Nothing you said about his views paralleled reality at all. Ur supposed representation of his views was completely retarded and demonstrated a complete lack of analytical skills. It just didn't.. Change the world in a week? haha, ya right, I'm sure Ron said that.. Ur completely full of shit
SHIBBYiPANDA 7 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA he did say that. I will look for the video of him saying it and send you a link. And your telling me that I need to do some research? Your the one who knows nothing of the civil war and blindly sides with someone about it just because you like some of his other policies. And you say that I can't analyze Ron views. Why do you say that? Because I disagree with you. It's not hard to analyze things what's hard is to see when they are wrong. In this situation most of Ron's views are bad
TheRingo721 6 months ago
@TheRingo721 No, I say you haven't analyzed his viewed I correctly because I just don't see your summaries of his views representing anything I've heard Ron Paul actually say and I've watched a fair amount of Ron Paul footage and have one of his books. And Ron's view of the civil war, is about as relevant to modern day politics as Mitt Romney's view that the Native Americans were a lost tribe of Israel, which even if RP is wrong is about 50x crazier.. Ron Paul's views are pretty much awesome..
SHIBBYiPANDA 6 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA you just sounded incredibly stupid right there.By saying that his view on the civil war are not relevant to modern day politics, you have just shown what a total idiot you are.Of course they are relevant.If someone thinks that the civil war could have been solved by buying all the slaves, that just shows how stupid they are and how they cannot view history correctly or view politics correctly /watch?v=zDM8US25xXg and don't try and warp his speech, listen to what hes actually saying
TheRingo721 6 months ago
@TheRingo721 ya what was wrong with anything he said there? It certainly would change the world in a matter of weeks if the biggest power in the world changed it's foreign policy. It makes sense to say the price of oil would be well affected by our pulling out of the middle east, I can't say how much or which way because I don't know much about gas prices.. I didn't hear anything that sounded that implausible.. I would love for you to point out the errors in what he said there..
SHIBBYiPANDA 6 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Having us begin to pull out of Iraq will not change the world in a few weeks. The proof is that we are and have been pulling out of Iraq for quite some time now and there have been no big changes. It's good we are pulling out but it's not causing what your god Ron Paul thinks.Oil prices aren't changing like he thought they would either. You and him both need to learn about the oil market. I see that you only hear certain parts of what Ron sais. You don't hear the important parts.
TheRingo721 6 months ago
@TheRingo721 haha I think the same thing about you buddy.. And he didn't even mention Iraq in that video so.. He said he'd pull military out from all over the world.. How would that not increase gas prices and change world foreign policy? "oil prices aren't changing like he thought they would", what are you referring?? Of courses, he's stated he would pull the troops out Iraq immediately.. There is nothing stopping them from getting on boats and coming home right now except executive orders..
SHIBBYiPANDA 6 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA You can't pull out all the troops at once. Things don't work that way. Ron Paul would be great if things actually worked the way he and you think they do. And he does mention Iraq. You need to pay attention better. And he sais gas prices would go down! Not rise like your saying. hahaha I don't if you meant to say something else like prices would lower. But you need to fix your grammar then or watch the video closer. We have been pulling out of Iraq and things haven't been changing.
TheRingo721 6 months ago
@TheRingo721 Okay, he said he'd bring the troops home from Iraq, ur right.. And I meant decrease.. I think the idea there is that removing sanctions from Iran and backing our navies off would decrease oil prices as the countries who had the oil felt less threatened.. And what's to stop troops from just getting on boats and coming home? Yeah it might take a couple trips or something but there's no reason i see that the troops couldn't have been home in six months is Obama had REALLY wanted them 2
SHIBBYiPANDA 6 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA You could have pulled out in six months but it would have been too drastic. It wouldn't have affected us but it would have greatly affected them to pull out that quickly. It would have worsened things there. And us pulling out has nothing to do with the price of oil. The pricing of oil doesn't go down because they feel less threatened. We could make the oil price go down by being there and taking control but that's about it. That's one of the few military ways to lower the pricing.
TheRingo721 6 months ago
@TheRingo721 Why would Ron Paul say the opposite?
SHIBBYiPANDA 6 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Because he apparently doesn't understand the pricing of oil. He thinks that if you can relate things to ending the war then idiots will think that he is right and that he understands everything. He's obviously gotten you to believe in him.
TheRingo721 6 months ago
@TheRingo721 Well I don't believe things strongly without researching them, but so far, yep, I'm against what he's for even if he doesn't have a good reason for it. Personally I wouldn't withdraw as fast out of Iraq as Paul is claiming he desires too. But I'd def do it pretty fast. I'm also suspicious of the fed and the "corporations" so to speak. I'm against socialized stuff. I'd rather have it at the state level. The president's power needs to be decreased. Low spending is needed.. good deals
SHIBBYiPANDA 6 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA you mean you are pro what he is for, right?
TheRingo721 6 months ago
@TheRingo721 Mostly, yes. I haven't read his books so I don't know his arguments for everything he says he believes but his beliefs are not far from mine. Of all the candidates running, Paul seems to me the only one who would be the most fiscally conservative, the least "world police"ish, i'm not sure what I think about socialism or big gov, I think the drug war is retarded, I think the Fed needs more transparency and supervision. Paul seems to be for all these things.
SHIBBYiPANDA 6 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA oh okay. I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic in your last comment or something. I agree with some stuff with Ron but the majority of what he sais in my opinion is just plain stupid. Like I agree that the war on drugs is just plain stupid. But anyone with the slightest amount of intelligence should know that
TheRingo721 6 months ago
@TheRingo721 If that's true how come we hear it from pretty much nobody in the mainstream political spotlight?? To me, the fact that Ron's willing to stand up in front of every republican on the planet and tell them how stupid the drug war is, when no one else will, says he cares about the truth to me.
What do you disagree with of Ron's policies? And what that he says is "just plain stupid"??
SHIBBYiPANDA 6 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA tons of people stand up and say the war on drugs is stupid.Famous people do, average people do and political people do.Ron is not anything special for saying something that millions of other people say. Your asking again what is so stupid about what Ron sais well go back some comments and read them again because I have already explained to you what's stupid about what he said. Right now your just trying to get things to go into a circle because you have no clue about whats going on
TheRingo721 6 months ago
@TheRingo721 Well obama or romney will never say that... I'm sorry, my friend, I don't mean to go in a circle. You said Ron didn't understand how oil prices work, that we couldn't "change the world by changing people's attitudes" which is only half of what Ron said there that I don't see anything wrong with, and you said that his views on the Civil War are wrong..... Great, but, as far as I can see, those issues don't change that his declared policies(some of which I listed below) are awesome...
SHIBBYiPANDA 6 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA The only big policy i have seen you list was his stance on drugs. I agree with him on how stupid the drug war is. You've said that he stands up to people and sais the truth but a lot of what he said is stupid. The parts that he actually is smart on like the drug war, well millions of people say the same things and have the same stance on it. That doesn't make him any smarter or better than them if they are saying the same things. Ron is just a guy with many misses and a few hits
TheRingo721 6 months ago
@TheRingo721 I named some issues on which we clearly agree earlier. Are you familiar with any of his views about foreign intervention or the health care systems? He for free trade and non-involvement in the internal affairs of other countries. Or putting the departments of education or agriculture on the state level? Or moving towards reestablishing a gold standard of some kind(which Alan Greenspan has recently supported)? Or doing some damage to the Fed's power? All sound good to me
SHIBBYiPANDA 6 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA I am familiar with that stuff. I agree with a lot of it The thing is though is that it doesn't take a genius to have those views. There are many other people and politicians that have the same views. The problem with Ron is that he just is stupid on other things. It's good that he has those views like bringing back a gold standard and bringing education to state level. I agree with that but he just isn't the kind of guy that I would want as president because of how stupid he can be
TheRingo721 6 months ago
@TheRingo721 well I disagree with that conclusion.. I do think there are smarter people, all over, who could do a better job if they knew the relevant material but surely we can agree that of the candidates for the GOP nomination, he would be shittons better for the world than almost everyone else in the race.. Surely we could agree that he's the most consistent and seems to be convicted about his views.. You're right that it doesn't take a genius to have his views, but not many in politics do.
SHIBBYiPANDA 6 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA I can partly agree that he is better than the other people running right now, but I cannot fully agree until it gets closer to the election. As of now I will say that he is better than the other candidates but that can certainly change as much as it can stay the same. And yes he is very consistent with his views.
TheRingo721 6 months ago
@TheRingo721 Why can't you agree more fully until it gets closer to election time?? I'd give anything to help him win the fucking GOP nomination.. Unless there's someone else out there whose got similar policies to Ron Paul I don't know about.. I'm thinking of putting up some signs pretty soon for him..
SHIBBYiPANDA 6 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA I can't agree fully until the election time because then I would a fool like Ron can be. I have to pay attention until it's close to election time because people like to change around then . A lot of candidates will check the numbers and if they are not to their liking then they sometimes change stances or start other things or come up with new ideas to help raise their chances of being elected. Look at Obama, he had bad Latino ratings so he came up with the new immigration law.
TheRingo721 6 months ago
@TheRingo721 Do you think Ron would do something like that? It seems one of the biggest things going for him is the fact that he has been more consistent then most anybody else in DC over his career because he actually believes in what he says instead of being a popularity whore seeking to tickle the imagination of stupid public like everyone else.. I'm buying a bumber sticker currently that says something like "Ron Paul: Because he's honest" or something lol..
SHIBBYiPANDA 6 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA I'm not saying Ron would change but another candidate may change. I'm not saying anyone will and I'm not saying that just cause they do change doesn't mean that they will really change. I'm just saying that I can't be on board till the end.
TheRingo721 6 months ago
Ron Paul may have some valid points about Lincoln's overall ideology, but I disagree with his condemning of the Civil War. Let's not forget, though, that the GOP wasn't founded by conservative ideologues; it was founded by abolitionists, who were considered quite liberal for their time.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@zombiefitnezz Once the slaves were bought and freed, they would have little choice other than to work on the farms of the plantations/owners they had just been freed from. BUT, they would have to be paid WAGES. See how that would work now?
" What about 100 years of lynchings in the south?" I'm pretty sure just being free would be a significant step forward at that point.
Not looking like such a moron now, huh?
peng1965a 8 months ago
I had an argument with a guy with him insisting the South wouldnt have sold their slaves and that we would go bankrupt in the process. My argument was that it was cheaper than war especially when u consider the cost of lives and that if u could get 1/3 of the South on board then it would be enough to unify . Ideally i think it would have been best if the north did not try to change the South and let morality take its natural course cuz even after we freed them they still faced many injustices.
ironspade 8 months ago
The slaveowners wouldn't have sold their slaves.
The South seceded, so letting morality take its course was out of the question at that point.
Edgehead10075 8 months ago
@zombiefitnezz you don't understand economics. If a fair price were paid for the slaves, it would have been enough to hire workers for the same labor. The lynchings happened AFTER the Civil War because of the resentment because of the Civil War. You wouldn't lynch your property.
hbdywtk 8 months ago
The slaveowners wouldn't have given up the slaves for a "fair price." They believed it was their God-given right to have slaves. There's no way that Lincoln could have bought slaves at a price that would have been cheaper than the cost of the Civil War.
Edgehead10075 8 months ago
@Edgehead10075 The slaveowners viewed their slaves as property. The majority of the world, including the southerners knew slavery was wrong. In fact the Confederate Constitution banned the international slave trade. But the slaveowners had bought their slaves like any other investment and they weren't giving them up for nothing.
hbdywtk 8 months ago
I am still un-clear how this plan works.
I am a business man
the state just bought 10 slaves from me.
what stopping me from getting more slaves and selling them to the state again? The way I understand it, that plan was not going to end slavery it was going to make it a more profitable business.
jarinthemood2000 9 months ago
@jarinthemood2000, it was illegal to import new slaves from Africa and it was illegal to enslave free blacks. You compensate the slave owners for their loss of "property" and mandate that all children born to any slave after a certain date would be free. In time, either all slaves would have been bought and freed or they would have died out. This strategy worked perfectly well in England, wiki the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.
650,000 innocents did not need to die.
wood9670 8 months ago
Hello? They woudln't have sold the slaves!
Edgehead10075 8 months ago
@Edgehead10075, how do you know that? What made the U.S. situation so different from the English? By the 18th century slavery was already in decline due to the Industrial Revolution. In an economy where tradesmen, craftsmen, technicians, and skilled laborers grew in ever more importance, the demand and sustainability of dependent laborer decreased.
But my previous post was about the manner in which slavery ended, the murder of 1 innocent person, let alone 650,000 was immoral & unnecessary.
wood9670 8 months ago
"Wouldn't," that is.
In Britain, the slaveowners were told, "Sell your slaves, or you're going to jail." The slaveowners there didn't have the political power to revolt. In America, they most certainly had the political power to revolt. They would have just said, "Fuck you" if told to sell their slaves.
There was no murder. It was war killing that was totally justified. The South had no right to secede, no matter what Ron Paul says, and they had no right to take over Ft. Sumter.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
Stop blaming the good guys who ended slavery in America.
Besides that, Lincoln would have even kept slavery legal to keep the country united, and slavery wasn't the only reason why the South seceded either. Tariffs were another reason.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
Stop blaming the good guys who ended slavery in America.
Besides that, Lincoln would have even kept slavery legal to keep the country united, and slavery wasn't the only reason why the South seceded either. Tariffs were another reason. The South seceding was unavoidable, and most people don't agree with Paul's view that we should have just let them secede.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@Edgehead10075, I never said slavery was the only reason for the CW.
I am arguing against the idea that it is moral to murder 650,000 innocent people to end slavery.
Good people don't murder!
Now you seem to hold the position that they were not murdered exclusively over the issue of slavery, I agree. But seeing as I am opposed to murder on principle, those reasons are irrelevant to me.
I also don't care what most people think, their opinion is irrelevant to the morality of the situation.
wood9670 7 months ago
You know that not all killing is murder, right? Killing in a legal war, which the Civil War was, isn't murder.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
Do you also believe that we should have turned the other cheek after 9/11, since war is always wrong, in your opinion?
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@Edgehead10075, I oppose the wars but I would not have done nothing.
Like Ron Paul I would have supported the Congress issuing letters of marque and reprisal against the orchestrators of the attacks.
I also would have supported the Congress abolishing the policies that prompted the attacks. (i.e. ending aid to foreign dictators; ending the economic sanctions against Iraq that killed 500,000+ children; and removing the military installation in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia)
wood9670 7 months ago
Fair enough, although Ron Paul did vote for the invasion of Afghanistan.
What about our war with Japan during WW2? Was that not a just war? We were attacked, not by terrorists, but rather by Japan's government.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@Edgehead10075, I think you are misunderstanding me. I never said war is always wrong. Everybody has a right to defend themselves. As long that in doing so they don't violate the equal rights of others.
I hold that murdering innocent people is always wrong, even if done by governments. How many people would you murder to avenge a slain family member or friend?
As to your question, FDR provoked Japan to attack the U.S. in order to get into the war with the Germans. No it was not a just war.
wood9670 7 months ago
Okay, but when were innocent people murdered in the Civil War? Maybe there were (My recollection of history is rusty.), but soldiers fighting soldiers isn't murder.
I understand your position on FDR, as I've heard other people say the same thing. However, I do believe that, whether or not you agree with FDR's boycott of Japan, a nation has a right to its own trade policy, which includes not trading with a particular nation. I don't believe that Japan's attack of Pearl Harbor was justified.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
Once Japan attacked us, we had every right to declare war on them, which we did.
I've heard many people say that we were wrong in dropping two atomic bombs on Japan because of the civilian casualties. However, I accept the explanation that civilians weren't targeted and that the bombs targeted weapons factories. Collateral damage is a sad part of war but not necessarily murder.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@Edgehead10075 That's not what Ron is saying. If there were no slaves, the problem with secession probably wouldn't have existed. By being "bought off" or if you prefer, reimbursed for their investment, the Southerners would have been much less likely to go to the extreme of war. Of course, we can't say for sure that the war wouldn't have happened anyway, only that it would have been less likely. As it happened, the Southerners felt they had been left little choice, but to go to war.
peng1965a 7 months ago
They wouldn't have accepted the payout. It's really that simple. Whatever the government would have offered, the slaveowners would have made a lot more money by still having slaves. Nothing could have been done to stop the Civil War other than just letting the South secede, which the Supreme Court later ruled that they had no right to do so.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@Edgehead10075 More money yes, but would they have thought it was "enough more" to 1st) split the country (which couldn't have been an easy decision for anyone) 2nd) be worth getting your head blown off and 3rd) losing everything you had. By this I mean, A) your not going to be there to watch over your farm, your crops would probably suffer. B) The Union might take your property and toss you in prison if they won. There are probably other things I haven't thought of. You seem really sure. Why?
peng1965a 7 months ago
Well, they proved that they were willing to take that risk though.
If I'm not mistaken, wasn't buying the slaves proposed at some point in our history? I'm pretty sure that the plan failed. I would be surprised if the thought of buying the slaves' freedom didn't come across anybody's mind during that time.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@Edgehead10075 I searched the issue and couldn't find anything on a proposed plan to buy the slaves, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one. I'm interested in the war, read a few books, articles and watched some tv shows, but I'm no big time C.W. buff. If there was no offer, there should have been. The plantation owners may have lived in the Big House, but I'd bet most owed a lot of money. Getting a lump sum payoff may have made all the difference in the world. Who knows?
peng1965a 7 months ago
@peng1965a Google "Lincoln plan to buy slaves". He wanted to buy them for $400 each and ship them back to Africa. That would have cost at least $1.6 billion, but the slaveholders probably wouldn't have sold their slaves for that cheap.
What makes you think the slaveholders owed money? They were filthy stinking rich. The South, as a whole, almost held a monopoly on cotton. They could charge the world pretty much anything they wanted, and with slaves, their overhead was minimal.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Part 1) O.K. I read it, A) According to the article, when the plan was concieved the war had already been going on a YEAR. Of course it wouldn't work then. A buyout plan would have to have been initiated BEFORE the war started for it to have any chance of success. B) Sending the slaves back to Africa wouldn't be in the best interest of plantation owners because, howerer things turned out, they would still need them as laborers, even if they had to pay them wages.
peng1965a 7 months ago
@peng1965a (A) Good point. I forgot he proposed that during the war. I was thinking he proposed it even before he was elected president.
(B) You're right. It was a catch-22 for them, like the saying about women, "Can't live with them, can't live without them" except not funny. But it was the South's own fault. Slavery forced all the poor white southerners to the west/north because there were no jobs in the south. So there were no white laborers to take the slaves' places.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Part 2) Sure a lot of them were filthy rich, some probably not so much. There were smaller ones, bigger ones and gigantic ones (plantations). I'd guess the smaller ones had a harder time than the really big ones. We're talking hundreds or thousands of acers, dozens of buildings, slaves, equipment, etc...How many owned everything outright? How many owed money to banks? Crop failures, floods, drought, bad management, etc...Your good at looking stuff up, see what you can find.
peng1965a 7 months ago
@peng1965a If they ever needed money, they could just sell their slaves. Not to the government, but to slave traders or other plantations. What kind of buildings do plantations need? Slave quarters and a barn? What else? What equipment do they need? A cotton gin?
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Oh, I glanced through the "universal portal of all knowlege" (Wikipedia) on plantations. There's more to them than I would have thought. If you sell your slaves...what are you going to do next season? I do know a little about business...nothing if foolproof, you can be swimming in money one moment, and screwed the next. My guess is plantations were no different. I've never really read much on plantations. The Wiki article was worth reading though, interesting stuff.
peng1965a 7 months ago
@peng1965a "If you sell your slaves...what are you going to do next season?"
Do what the plantation owners did after slavery was abolished: Hire sharecroppers. They're basically the same thing as slaves, except you can't rape/torture/kill them and they can leave if they want to.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 If we talked to someone who really knew his stuff, he could give us examples of such things happening. There were probably even a few plantation owners who were against slavery and did hire sharecropers. This is something that never crossed my mind until I watched Ron talk about it. But, that's Ron, 1/2 of what he says is brilliant, the other 1/2 sounds goofy until you research it and really think it through. Then you think, yeah, sure, why not?
peng1965a 7 months ago
@peng1965a Ron Paul is a complete tool and a joke.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Well...that's what I thought, because that's what I always heard. Then for some reason I watched some of his videos...You're fun to bullshit with....got anything specific you want to talk about concerning ol' Ronnnie?
peng1965a 7 months ago
@peng1965a He's totally ignorant of the civil war and slavery and should never talk about either of them again. He's a buffoon.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 It's just simply one mans opinion that he mentioned in passing and people were interested and kept asking him about it. He doesn't campaign on the issue or anything. I still don't see anything partricularly wrong with what he says, A buyout was an option that wasn't tried at the right time. The whole thing is largely irrelevant unless someone invents a time machine. Have you ever watched any of his videos on current topics (current wars, economy, trade, etc..)?
peng1965a 7 months ago
@peng1965a A buyout was not ever a real option. It would have cost at least like $3 billion, which is about $60 billion today. It's not irrelevant because it shows he's a dumbass who pretends he knows what he's talking about when he is totally clueless. Maybe he's not that much different from any other politician.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Obviously it WAS a real option, Lincoln was prepared to do it a year into the war. So, that kinda blows both the first and second parts of your statement. Got anything that doesn't relate to this particular issue? I think we've gone as far as we can on this one.
peng1965a 7 months ago
@peng1965a Since Lincoln didn't propose that until the war started, he wasn't talking to the 11 states that seceded. Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware had about 10% of the slaves in the USA. And he wasn't proposing to buy them all, just the ones whose owners wanted to sell them.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Yeah, I looked back over the article. You're right. So that means, there was never ANY attempt to buyout the southerners. And I would be tempted to disagree with you that a buyout was impossible, since the war cost over 6 billion. If your figure of about 3 billion is correct, a buyout would have saved the U.S. about 3 billion. I'm sure it would have been a hard sell trying to finance, durring peacetime, a 3 billion buyout. Highly improbable, not impossible. Nice point though,
peng1965a 7 months ago
@peng1965a I don't think I ever said it was impossible. If I did, I meant politically impossible. There's no way the feds would have authorized that. The war may have ended up costing $6 billion but at the start, very few politicians thought it would last more than 90 days.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I'll have to agree with you on that. It's an interesting topic and I learned a little bit. It makes you think. There's a lot of great "what if" historical topics. Pauls opinion is understandable, being a doctor and being anti-war. I still think he is the most different of all the other canadates, the rest just seem to be for keeping everything rolling along, (more or less) just like it is. Even Mr. "Change". We need someone who will shake things up.
peng1965a 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Wasnt that just a polite conversation, why cant you be like that towards me? Am I too 'radical' for you?
RevBillyRayCollins 7 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins You're not radical at all. You're a reactionary. And you're a bigot.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I just think we should go back to how the country was intended to be run, not by an all powerful central government.
RevBillyRayCollins 7 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins We weren't an empire when the constitution was formed. Even if we disregard the overseas territories, there are 48 states in the contiguous US. Having a government controlled by 48 different entities is impossible. We're too big for a confederation. We need a powerful central government. Not an "ALL POWERFUL" central government, but it needs to have a lot of power.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Im not talking about a confederation. Thats not are style of govt. We should go back to how the country was run in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Where there was true federalsim, not like today where the feds hold all the cards.
RevBillyRayCollins 7 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins When did you drop out of school? You write "are" when you should write "our". You write "should of" when you should write "should've". You write "your" when you should write "you're". You even write "right" when you should write "write". I have never ever seen anyone on youtube make all 4 of those mistakes. Is that intentional? Can anyone be that stupid?
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Now your complaining about my grammar and spelling? Is that all you have left to combat me with? I admit I make little mistakes like those, but really, grow up and discuss the subject at hand.
RevBillyRayCollins 7 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins I'm not complaining. I'm making fun of you. I'm done speaking to you like an equal because you're not. You are a bigot. You just ignore the things I say that you can't refute. You're a typical ignorant inbred racist confederate worm with no integrity. Nothing more.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I ignore the many statements you say that dont have any documented evidence to back them up which for the most part has been the majority of what you have been posting. I have never once thought of someone as less equal than myself, I thought most people felt the same way but I guess I was wrong.
RevBillyRayCollins 7 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins All of my statements are backed up by the Constitution you stupid ignorant bastard. Why don't you actually read it?
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Why dont you actually prove it?
RevBillyRayCollins 7 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Why don't you tell me to prove what I say when I say it, instead of just ignoring it? Probably because you're full of shit, and like I said, you just ignore information you don't like.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Ive told you to prove many things numerous times and you either ignore me or take forever with answering it. Like where in the Const is unilateral secession illegal, that took you forever to come up with a bullshit answer.
Why dont you go ahead and prove that.
RevBillyRayCollins 7 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins You're like a religious nutjob who asks "Prove God doesn't exist!" Of course the Constitution doesn't say unilateral secession is illegal. I told you over and over and over again that it doesn't have to say it.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 And your only justification is that they signed the paper thus its illegal. How could something be illegal if it isnt actually mentioned? If there were no written laws against killing someone, and someone decided to kill someone, but then that guy gets charged with murder and the prosecuters say because murder was not actually written down as being legal we can charge you with murder anyway. But it was also not written down as being illegal. Wheres the sense in that?
RevBillyRayCollins 7 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins It's not illegal, it's illegitimate, it's null. It's like gay marriage in texas. You can have a ceremony and buy rings and change your names, but the government simply doesn't recognize it. You're not going to go to jail for getting married to another guy.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 If its not illegal or legal, then someone has to do something about it. The problem however is that any power not belonging to the feds belongs to the states and the people, look at the 10 amend. Secession falls in that category.
RevBillyRayCollins 7 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Texas v White
If the south believed secession was constitutional, they would've gone to the Supreme Court. They knew it was unconstitutional.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 If the union thought secession was unconstitutional they should have brought to the supreme court in the first place. They didnt.
RevBillyRayCollins 7 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins You're a dunce.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins Do I really have to explain this again? You're a dunce, completely incapable of learning. The southern states captured federal arsenals, post offices, courthouses, and forts. That's illegal. What's so hard to understand about this?
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@RevBillyRayCollins I'm going to go through all of your comments, paste all the idiotic things you've said into a word file, & show it to people. There are so many funny things you said. Like when you asked why Lincoln didn't give the confederacy what it wanted, in order to avoid bloodshed, & when you quoted Lincoln's "of the people by the people for the people" line of the Gettysburg address, thinking it came from (I'm guessing) Jefferson & the Declaration of Independence.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 No you dumbass, why do you think I said remember that GREAT QUOTE? Because it talks about a govt of the people... and supports why the govt works for us AND it was said by Abraham Lincoln. Abe supports my claims there.
RevBillyRayCollins 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 If you want to check out the wiki article it's under "Plantation complexes in the Southeastern United States"
peng1965a 7 months ago
If you are of the belief that states don't have the right to secede, you can't just stand there and do nothing if states secede from the union and take over military forts. In Lincoln's mind, letting them secede would have set a very bad precedent, so he came to the conclusion that war was necessary.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
@Edgehead10075, Is it acceptable to murder people? Yes or no? You don't seem to address this point. Morality is universal, those in government are bound by the same moral laws as you and I. If you, like me, believe murder is immoral then the reasons why somebody justifies their actions are irrelevant.
.
The Constitution no where forbids secession. No State would have joined if they knew that they could never leave and that they would be invaded for trying to do so.
wood9670 7 months ago
It's not acceptable to murder people, but I don't consider war fighting to be murder.
The Supreme Court eventually ruled that there was no right to secede, even though nowhere does the Constitution say that states cannot secede.
Edgehead10075 7 months ago
Killing soldiers in self-defense is not murder. However, the shelling and burning of civilian cities certainly is, & these acts were done by the North in defense of the "Union" against the South. Were they justified?
Regarding secession: SCOTUS represents the Federal government, its opinion is biased . Furthermore, to deny the right to secession is to reject the principle of government by consent of the people, as well as to deny the legitimacy of the U.S. government (i.e. American revolution).
wood9670 7 months ago
@jarinthemood2000 I think the government would have said that slavery will end but they would pay a fair price for them so the incentive would be there to sell and the institution would be abolished. Slavery was ended that way in Washington D.C.
hbdywtk 8 months ago
They wouldn't have sold their slaves, and the government saying that "slavery will end" = secession. Sorry, but there was no other way around the issue, except to just let the South secede, which is another discussion. Ron Paul is totally wrong.
Edgehead10075 8 months ago
Unconventional Wisdom. Ron Paul is a man of peace and principle. Judge a tree by it's fruit. Please dig farther into this man. Our country needs his philosophy and leadership.
Connect2Homes 9 months ago
Paul has no chance, and many are turned off by his laissez-faire views.
Edgehead10075 8 months ago
Ron Paul is an historical revisionist with a limited grasp of reality.
But that's only stating the glaringly obvious.
dbjkatz 9 months ago
@dbjkatz
No! historical revisionists are people that think the civil war was SOLELY about freeing slaves. Your 5th grade history book is revisionist HISTORY.
TheMango121 9 months ago
@TheMango121
As with most wars, the US Civil War had multiple causes. The overriding cause, however, was the South's decision to secede from the Union in order to form a Confederacy WHERE SLAVERY WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTELY PROTECTED RIGHT. That's the common denominator in the state constitutions of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc. The secessionists never tried to hide their true intentions. Unlike latter day historical revisionists.
dbjkatz 9 months ago
@dbjkatz
The only reason he called for the ending of slavery wasn't because he "cared about black people", He did it to keep the union as a whole... Lincoln hated states rights, and he hated the constitution.
Don't try to make Lincoln to be some kind of Jessie Jackson. Lincoln wanted to send them back to Africa, not free them and give them the same rights as other people like our constitution states.
TheMango121 9 months ago
@TheMango121 I agree with the first sentence. Lincoln understood that if he didn't abolish slavery, another secession crisis would inevitably happen in the future. Anyway, regardless of his personal feelings, Lincoln was not about to forcibly deport the freed slaves to South America or Africa.
As for, "Lincoln hated states rights and ... the constitution," what proof exists to support this extreme view? A letter? A diary? The states rights crowd strikes me as totally myopic anyway :P
dbjkatz 9 months ago
@dbjkatz Abraham Lincoln was a Tyrant! watch?v=4CwkG2C5sAc
If you want some scholarly support for the claims in the video link above then you can buy the books: "The Real Lincoln" and/or "Lincoln Unmasked" by Thomas DiLorenzo. You can find a used copy on Amazon.
Here is an hour interview of him discussing his work on C-SPAN. watch?v=nbFty9nZUac
Lincoln was one evil f*cker.
wood9670 8 months ago
You're right about Lincoln, but so what? He would have kept slavery legal to keep the union whole, but that went out the window when the South seceded.
Edgehead10075 8 months ago
Shouldn't the HUMAN RIGHT to not be a slave trump states' rights?
Edgehead10075 8 months ago
Ron Paul For President 2012
OfficerHollaway92 10 months ago
I wonder how much money Mr. Paul thinks it would have taken to buy the slaves. Stupid people think money can just fix everything from a family torn apart by divorce, to a wrongful death, to slavery. Also, plantation owners didn't deserve to be reimbursed from their loss of slaves. They were a bunch of racist pricks holding people against their own will and reserving civil rights for a select minority. They didn't need compensation. That's not how you solve the problem of racism.
Limbach17 11 months ago
@Limbach17
If people followed Dr. PAUL's philosophy of liberty, there would have been no slavery in the first place. Democrats and Republicans are the slave owners.
TheMango121 9 months ago
@Limbach17
Exactly.
In a further twist of irony, Ron Paul rants to no end that paper money is worthless and the US needs to go back to a gold standard. So what's his (fantastical) solution to slavery? Print money and pay off the slaveowners.
dbjkatz 9 months ago
@Limbach17 What he's saying is that....Fighting the war cost far, far, far more than it would have cost for the Gov. just to buy & free the slaves. Plantation owners didn't deserve reimbursement...Yes... from a moral standpoint, but if "paying them off" prevented war at a much, much lower cost, then that's what should have been done.
And don't....don't forget, that slaves in the U.S. were often the former slaves of other black tribes in Africa, captured by blacks to be sold to slave traders.
peng1965a 8 months ago