0 votes

"More Than Historical Stupidity in Paul’s Slavery Crack"

I was interested enough in Paul's comment during the presidential campaign that other countries had freed slaves without going to war to do some basic research. I found that the British in their Emanciaption Act of 1933 had provided for payment of 20 millioin pounds to free 781,000 slaves.

Our civil war was estimated to have cost $6 billion dollars. Freeing 3 million slaves held by less than 5% of the southern population through compensation would have cost $1.2 billion.

Paul's idea was attacked it the following article. Comments and responses are appreciated.


More Than Historical Stupidity in Paul’s Slavery Crack
By Earl Ofari Hutchinson on December 27, 2007

No-shot GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul tossed out yet another juicy zinger this time on Meet the Press when he said that Lincoln was a bad guy for fighting the civil war. Paul’s solution: simply shell out some cash, buy the slaves, and set them free. One would like to believe that Paul is just jerking off the press and the public with his shoot from the lip, loose brained, solutions on everything from taxes to ending the Iraq war. And that his dig at Lincoln for fighting the Civil War is the latest in the train of dumb wit Paulisms.

Continue reading here:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Alright! Anybody who accuses

Alright! Anybody who accuses the South of having 'won the peace' with, out of all things, 'economic domination', is simply an ignoramus. Period.

And even if Abe had no takers at $400 / slave (somehow doubt it, as at least I would simply have started breeding my slaves like the Aussies did rabbits when faced with similar incentives...), perhaps the going rate was $4000. Markets do clear, you know. Even slave markets. Unless you're an ignoramus, perhaps.

Besides, by 1860 we were within decades of agricultural mechanization, which would have rendered plantation slavery uneconomical anyway. It really is cheaper to pay the guy driving a tractor a wage decent enough to make him work voluntarily, than it is to buy an additional tractor for someone to drive next to him and whip him. And similarly, turning on a dishwasher doesn't really require that much more effort than whipping someone to do it for you.... Which is kind of why you don't find slavery anymore; except for in the most primitive, capital free, professions. Like prostitution.

Man, I wish America didn't have to breed so many idiots. And, alternatively, that said idiots wouldn't all feel so compelled to flaunt their idiocy by falling over themselves trying to outdo one another in chanting politically correct progressive drivel.

Of course everybody recognizes that slavery was bad. But so is killing half of societies young men in a stupid war. And setting a once great constitutional republic on the path to centralized tyranny in the process.

Tell people to Google "Interpol", then hit "Trafficking in....

...human beings". Slavery is still big business. Look at the FBI statistics for missing people in the US. Does everyone think these people are victims of serial killers? Some are being sold into slavery. Not all, but a few. There has always been slavery and it is going to get worse in the near future, unless people start to think clearly.

Earl Ofati Hutchinson?

Who the heck is he? More bluster than brains, but I think what Ron Paul said was something like, "Many nations eliminated slavery but the U.S. was the only one that fought a war to do it." Ron Paul never made specific recommendations that we should have done exactly what Britain did. The fact is Lincoln wanted war for economic reasons. It had nothing to do with slavery,which was an afterthought. The slavery issue came as a last resort by Lincoln to drum up support. Good article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html


well , that's why I love Paul. He shoots from the hip. He doesn't find out what you want him to say. He may make a mistake once in a while but it's his mistake. Paul is real, he isn't a politician.

This debate needs to be seated in truth

The slave trade did not end with the civil war. Newport, Rhode Island remained one of the key capitols of the slave trade until the late 1880's. Documents can be presented in support of this and I have seen them along with photography and witness accounts. The slave business was booming folks...booming.

The fortunes of the leading families of the north were built on slaves and opium. I have research to support this and am not alone.

The British are presented as having "handled their slave problem."

Bull shit....they developed and ran the slave trade...it was their effing trade along with the opium trade. The effing British empire was built on slaves for God's sake get your research straight. Do you know what BEIC means? If you don't drop off this thread until you have spent hours on the subject and be assured that "their version" will be lies.

Lincoln was involved for a few years in a business that spanned for effing centuries.

I have debated with Tom Dilorenzo and we do not even begin to agree on anything about Lincoln..

The bankers who control the damn world NOW also controlled it THEN....duh.

The civil war served THEIR interests. Jeff Davis had a hand shoved up his a$$...he was a puppet.

For pete's sake does anyone look at the big picture?

The rulers of the planet have used war for the same reason and the same goal THROUGHOUT history. Can you answer this? If you can't why are you talking about Lincoln?

Wars BANKRUPT countries. They always have and always will. If you OWN the countries debt....YOU OWN THE COUNTRY.

Why is this such a tough concept?

All the European wars? The bankers own Europe. Right? You don't agree? They own the Vatican City and the City of London and the central banks for Italy and the UK and France and Germany and the projected bank for the EU.

They FUNDED Davis. Follow the money, brother. You think planters funded Davis?

Now for the Lincoln debate. They let him win the presidency because they thought they could get him to do what THEY wanted.

Lincoln was a far more profound pragmnatist than they estimated. They assumed he would "sell out" and borrow money from the Rothschild banks in New York. This would have put Lincoln and Davis fully in debt and fully leveraged to the bankers....duh.

That is how you take over a country. Get a war going and fund BOTH SIDES.

Lincoln who is given WAY too much credit for everything in that era blows up your whole debate.


He printed greenbacks....and they "worked." The "pull it out your ass" greenback printoff was not planned for by the bankers and screwed up their "BANKRUPT the USA "plans for a few more years.

Is Lincoln a hero for greenbacks? He got lucky and got shot in the back for his trouble.

Dilorenzo has an agenda and i disagree with it.

The slaves were a BRITISH operation, gentlemen, Lincoln knew this and now you do too.

The southern planters had sh%$ ....they were quite simply "users." There is NO great southern fortune anywhere made on planting and the use of slaves...NOWHERE to be found. The tobacco people were and are part of the banker group, yes they were slave users and ALWAYS had been, but they were and always had been part of the rulership while the majority of southern planters were NOT.

The civil war was not about slaves. The civil war was about what ALL WARS are about. Bankrupting a country and gaining control of it through debt....they do it over and over because it works.

If I own the note on your house I can THROW YOU OUT...this is called control. Simple concept. I have power over YOU through my ownership of YOUR debt.

Stop reading history books....brainwash. Lincoln gets about one half of one percent of the credit for the civil war and that is only because he was a bumpkin who distrusted the Rothschild scumbags who still own New York.and got away with printing his own money...dumb luck on his part...dumb luck.

"I hate Lincoln"

"I love Lincoln"

Both of you are wrong. No win situation for anyone but the bankers and they lost, but, only temporarily.



Move along. There's nothing to see here.

Obviously Earl is a moron.

Obviously Earl is a moron. Amazing he can even read and write. We all know the war had nothing to do with slavery, it was specifically engineered to put another nail in the coffin of states rights. There are times when someone is so wrong that it's a waste of time to even respond to their statements and this is one of those times. Not worth signing up at that site to rebut the guy.

Get a cool Campaign For Liberty bumper sticker or decal for your windshield.
Support Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty project. Go to --- www.CampaignForLibertyStuff.com

Turn off the TV Propaganda.
Find out what's really going on!
"Your portal to reality!"

I believe your comment that...

."..We all know the war had nothing to do with slavery, it was specifically engineered to put another nail in the coffin of states rights."

is important but incorrect in that most people still believe that the war was about slavery and that states' rights was a side issue (if they think about it at all).

I thought Paul's comment was extraordinary for this reason. The idea that Lincoln had feet of clay was never before presented to the public as far as I know. Lincoln, the quintessential icon, was brought into question.

So, I wonder if he made any serious attempt to avoid the war by buying freedom for the slaves.

(I would not respond on Earl's site either but it is worthwhile to examine his arguments and consider a counter-argument because his perspective is not unusual. Lincoln, after all, has been above reproach to most Americans).

Spend Time with DiLorenzo's book and then rebut

the idiot yourself. It is a waste of time trying to educate the brainwashed unless theyt find a need for such education. The desire to know truth emanates from within.

Trying to educate the unbudgeable is like telling some guy his mother was a whore in high school and expecting him to acquiesce to it, even when the whole class reunion is winking at her...denial and meme are powerful to the uninformed...take it from a previously uninformed idiot.

**“The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.” ~ Mark Twain **

"...there is no doubt that it (socialism) could not possibly have affected us so widely and so deeply as it has, had it not been heavily financed". - B. Carroll Reece

these people are ignorant of history

The civil war was not about slavery alone, it was about taxation. It was about the rights of states to secede from the union.
Lincoln is revered for setting the slaves free, but he should be villified for provoking the confederacy and then using the resulting conflict to justify a war
The federal government started on its path to despotism under lincoln.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

Wasn't Lincoln's intent answered a wk after RP lost Super Tue.

...In a letter to Illinois Sen. James A. McDougall dated March 14, 1862, Lincoln laid out the estimated cost to the nation's coffers of his "emancipation with compensation" proposal.

Paying slave-holders $400 for each of the 1,798 slaves in Delaware listed in the 1860 Census, he wrote, would come to $719,200 at a time when the war was soaking up $2 million a day.

Buying the freedom of an estimated 432,622 slaves in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and Washington, D.C., would cost $173,048,800 — nearly equal to the estimated $174 million needed to wage war for 87 days, he added.

Lincoln suggested that each of the states, in return for payment, might set something like a 20-year deadline for abolishing slavery.

The payout "would not be half as onerous as would be an equal sum, raised now, for the indefinite prosecution of the war," he told McDougall.

The idea never took root. Six months later, Lincoln issued the first of two executive orders known as the Emancipation Proclamation that declared an end to slavery. The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified after the collapse of the confederacy of pro-slavery states, ending two centuries of bondage in North America.....

It's a shame Tim Russert & David Shuster couldn't control their ADD long enough to learn something from RP. He tried to talk about Lysander Spooner's writings, No Treason, but Shuster "didn't want a history lesson", and so it goes today.

Why comment on a Blog over a year old?

just curious...

REMEMBER, Obama is

emulating Lincoln - think about that one!

As was noted...

"The federal government started on its path to despotism under lincoln."

and so when Lincoln is hailed as a one of our greatest presidents, and the GOP proudly proclaimed as the "Party of Lincoln", due to the outcome of the civil war-the emanicpation of slaves and 'preservation of the Union'- is it a lie or a partial truth?

The Friendly Fire article presents the south as irrrevocably and interminably opposed to the end of slavery (not mentioning that only 5% of population were slaveholders) but Lincoln's proposals came after the war began, clearly influencing any likelihood of it being taken seriuosly. So, was it a belated yet honest effort on Lincoln's part or an act that he knew would never fly? How serious as well was Lincoln's earlier proposal in 1849 regarding the elimination of slavery in Washington DC?

It is not the cited article that is important but the questions raised. The truth matters because much of what we do and the problems we are in today flow from these events.

600,000 human beings Americans died

in civil war.
I read books with pictures of battle grounds filled with rotting bodies...it was common for one side being victorious to bury only their own leaving the enemy bodies to rot in the sun....war is hell.*)

(Better) to be confused in the search for truth than fully confident and sound asleep in a dream of lies. ~ Michael Nystrom

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15


and you cannot put a price on human life.

"The state is the great myth where everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frederic Bastiat

Friendly Fire ! Not worth the effort. Obviously this individual

Not worth the time to comment on the friendly fire site. Obviously this individual dosnt know history or the value of life. The statement made regarding Ron Paul and shooting from the hip sounds like a true Bush/Chenney or a NeoCon follower way of verbalizing.
However, we should know that when someone is having a great impact on the real issues they will get fired at. Yep, even "friendly fire". Bush administration followers know what that is all about. I wonder how many friendly fire accounts in wars were actually from friendly intentions.
Congressman Paul, a Patriot who has just introduced HR833 continues behind the front lines. He fights for the freedoms that "Friendly Fire" and so many others have who do not appreciate what Ron Paul has accomnplished through out his life.
I've been spreading the freedom message and continue to pave the way for others to get in position to fight for freedom.
Continue the fight Dr.Paul !

If it had been done:

by purchasing their freedom, we may not have gone bankrupt and perhaps would not have the corporate take over that has been perpetrated on the American public since 1871. Just a thought.
I love my country
I am appalled by my government

I love my country
I am appalled by my government

I thought this was deleted

now it's front page ?

The author is ignorant and uneducated.

Aside from that, I can't see what else needs to be said.

Support the Constitution of the United States

Support the Constitution of the United States