FLASHBACK: Ron Paul Believed That The Federal Government Should Have Paid Off Slave Masters To Free The Slaves

Although i do believe that war should always be the very last option, i feel as if the 12 million slaves killed, and brutally mistreated in the 400 hundred years slavery ran rampant is more than enough a reason to start a war.

History is full of twists and turns. You can never really narrow it down to exactly what would or could have happened, so it is disengenous to even play that game. It does give an idea of where someone stands on issues that are yet to play out, and I think there is some use in that regard.

What Ron was explaining is completely with precident at that time and after. Although Paul didn't agree with going off the gold standard, the government didn't just take everyones gold; they were paid for it. At this time in history, slaves were considered property by the government and couldn't therefore be seized by the government (or freed, which is basically the same thing from the slave owner's prespective). Our constitution includes requirements that the government reimburse people when it must take their property. Paul is correct, that this may have prevented many deaths in a war and the constitutional amendment could be added to protect those moving forward. It is impossible to surmise that the South would have "used they're slave money to win the civil war"; afterall it was the lack of industry that caused the south to loose; not money.

Lets look at a similar modern day scenerio when we play what if: How would you like it if the governement decided that it was illegal to own land property and you must give them the title to your house and pay rent to them. Doesn't bother those that own the house, and may even seem like the right thing to do in some folks minds. For those that put their hardwork and money into their house in hopes of one day owning it; it is a pretty crappy deal.

I suspect Ron will be sellected as the repo party's candidate because they may not want an actual republican- by- name in the whitehouse during these continueing times of worker population -attrition -by- design of the super rich. I believe the same reasoning is why they didnot steel the election from Obama . The powerful want to point at people who apear to be as different looking as possible to alledge that it was some one other than themselves who engineered the hell on earth they have created.Ron Paul is a pig. This is true. But he maybe the lipstick used to make the republican party look like less of an ugly pig than it truely is. I think Ron Paul would realish being in the role of thier clown at thier front desk. I think he would enjoy acting the big-shot while answering the phones for the super rich in the Bush Crime Family and thier friends.

Typical Libertarian Stance ------ Everyone has a price but No Principles.

The Southern Principles were sub-human, much as they are now.

ttold u so again, paul is reagan 2.0 after reading the arguements for pauls position..nevermind the past, a more recent debate on guns brings out the same ignorant ilk

So why is this a bad idea? Would have saved countless lives and money. Also I think it is difficult to judge actions of that time by looking through our current moral lens.

I thought this sounded crazy from the title, but as i kept reading it actually sounded extremely reasonable. He just wanted to end slavery without war and death like other countries did. What's so terrible about that?

While I am not a Ron Paul supporter, and I will not vote for him, the philosophy he is endorsing here (war is the absolute last tool to be grasped instead of the first) is something I wholeheartedly support. If there are those of you who wish to turn something simple into a convoluted and asinine debate then have at it. However it only shows the religious paradigm your mind works under.

If it were possible to end slavery and avoid a war by purchasing slaves and setting theme free, I would agree with Mr. Paul. I would, however, add that each former slave should also have received payment.

Of course this would not have worked and it seems as though this goes against Mr. Paul's small government policies.

They say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. So "Little Rand" grew up nurtured by the wit, wisdom and down home folklore exemplified in Ron's newsletters. Isn't that special. Merry Christmas America.

All European countries developed different strategies to end African Slavery. The practice in the Danish West Indies was to free the slaves if there was a bad year of sugar cane production. They were freed to starve. The Danes first made slaveholders responsible for provisions and shelter until their slaves died. Then they abolished slavery, yet kept the law requiring slaveholders be responsible for the food and shelter of their former slaves.
There were a myriad of ways European nations dealt with the abolishment of African slavery.

I think I should remind everyone that Lincoln actually was considering paying off the slave owners, and despite that fact, the south attacked the north to start the Civil War.

People who suggest that the Union should have gone into massive debt to pay off the slave owners are forgetting the fact that the south didn't like being subject to the laws of the union. Whatever duration of peace that could have been purchased would have crippled the north and we would be living in a very different nation (or maybe nations).

Actually, compensation of slave owners is probably the most peaceful way to emancipate slaves. The catch, of course, has to be that it be made illegal for them to buy more slaves, and that law is enforced.

For starters slavery never ended.... Go watch "The Corporation" it's currently airing on LinkTV, and probably will air 10 more times before their latest pledge drive is over....

Slavery never ended it was only outsourced, and in many ways if you look at modern America, a large portion of the American people have the choice between "slave masters" but that's about it. 10 different job options, all barely paying enough for a person to get by if you really want to factor in the important things like medical and dental. With zero chance of; advancement, saving, or doing more than keeping the bills paid... You factor in only roughly 47% of working aged Americans having full time jobs....

And the vast majority of Americans would need a substantial loan from a bank to go into any kind of worthwhile business for themselves...

Should see me at the bank;

"Please Massa, just let me borrow 30k, all my other Massas work me to death, tax the hell out of me, tell me I can't even smoke a joint after work, and tell me they're working on having approved new laws where if I even rhetorically challenge their bullshit, I can be labeled a "terrorist", detained, and extraordinarily rendition-ed....." "I just want a food-truck, make sandwiches for the masses, and I need to get started before the make so many regulations I have to start asking for 60$ to cover all the permits, please, please, PLEASE!!!!"

To which the bank replies;

"You a bad Toby, and actually, we make more money by not lending right now, see if you had been smart and hit us up 3-4 years ago, before our buddies on Wall Street helped us ruin everything, we would have gladly loaned you the money, at a 33% interest rate of course..... Sorry Toby, you'll just have to impress one of the other Masters, or you can choose to break a (most often complete BULLSHIT) law, in which case you'll loose your freedom, and those invested in the prison industrial complex will make profits.... Ha Ha!!! Either way you lose!!!"

Idk, read it, read it in context, listened to the video... Given the fact we're all pretty much bought and sold like commodities today, even the details about us are sold to advertising agencies that work for multinational corporations and harass us in the online and real world....

No opinion on his thoughts, his main point was; "THERE WAS NO NEED FOR WAR."

We're almost all still slaves in some form or fashion, slaves to a corrupt system that seeks to keep us under it's thumb, and silence dissent.

Interesting facts;

After checking MANY sources, this seems fairly (most) accurate (that I've found, may be off).

Total - 1860 CENSUS

Total Population............31,183,582

Free Colored Persons.........476,748

Total Free Population........27,233,198

Total Number of Slaves..............3,950,528

_____________Slaves as % of Population........13%

Total Number of Families......5,155,608

Total Number of Slaveholders.......393,975

_____________% of Families Owning Slaves......8%"

http://www.civil-war.net/census.asp?census=Total

(& from all I have gathered my family did NOT own slaves in the years immediately prior to and during the civil war... And most likely had family fighting both sides..... And yes even people in the North owned slaves up until pretty close to the Civil War. Oh and my Great Great Great Grandmother, was kicked out of school for "being black"....)

Another fun fact, there were Chocolate Confederates who fought in the civil war, some of whom were allegedly free before the start of hostilities ..... And their descendants are still around....

http://blackconfederates.blogspot.com/

This isnt bailing out banks this is freeing people without causing death. WHAT?

You are kidding me. So your saying the civil war was a better option?

That was then, Now he'd insist that slaves buy their own freedom.

Nuttier than a forest full of hickory trees.

Buying the slaves from the slave owners and he will buy more slaves
It is like the tax break for the job creator pay lower wages and lay off more employees

Amazing.

And how does Ron Paul believe these 4 million slaves would have lived? Who would have given them paid jobs? Who would have given them land and tools as well as teach them how to farm the land?

In general I believe Ron Paul to be a capitalist snake, and most libertarian ideas concerning government, with even the most cursory of examination, are asocial and idiotic at best, and genocidal at worst, these people want to take the psychopathic utterances of their hero Ayn Rand, and desperately try to rationalize and legitimatize such babble.

It should also be noted, that in later years she utilized the services of many of the institutions which she had condemned, for those of you for prostate yourself at the altar of Ayn Rand, and are unfamiliar with the English language or dictionary, that's called being a hypocrite.

What should be remembered, is that even such an asocial, maladjusted, hateful and evil man, such as Adolf Hitler was a great speech giver, and might even have had an occasional good idea, (such as the autobahn, which was basically a huge public works program) but that is far outweighed by their negative attributes, and such is precisely the case with Ron Paul.