Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
I was tempted to venure into those waters, but expected someone else would do it, and I was curious to see how. I think that article is probably as good as any.
Paul obviously didn't understand that the Slavers didn't need the money, they needed the labor.
-
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
generally, do not like the fiscal way, Lincoln fought the war.
It was inconceivable to the Confederate founding fathers, that the United States, would raise large funds through the sale of bonds, government debt.
The U.S. spent billions fighting the war. Want to rattle a libertarian -mention war bonds.
There was no way the Confederates or southerners would take a low amount of money for the freedom of slaves. Slavery was generally the only way to wealth in the South.
There was no way the Confederates or southerners would take a low amount of money for the freedom of slaves. Slavery was generally the only way to wealth in the South.
Even more, whitworth, the slave was the wealth in the south. Most all of the vaunted wealth in the south, and it was considerable, was in the collateral value of the slave and the land he worked. Very little cash money existed.
Just to continue rambling, I've seen it said that the amount offered (was it $300?) was ridiculous, as a prime field hand could bring almost $2000. If I'm recollecting correctly, the offer was for every slave: man, woman, child and elderly. As a child, a slave might be worth $300, but an old man or woman was a burden on the owner. The offer wasn't all that bad.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I'd say the general consensus from TNR's Talkback is that this was a last minute smear timed for the New Hampshire primary. From TNR Talkback, #26, Sean posts:
From Ron Paul: January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement: "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. "In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.' "This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary. "When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
I agree with the noting that the Lew Rockwell/Mises Institute libertarians and the Cato/Reason Magazine libertarians are entirely different animals. Libertarianism and the confederacy make strange bedfellows.
I'd say the general consensus from TNR's Talkback is that this was a last minute smear timed for the New Hampshire primary. From TNR Talkback, #26, Sean posts:
From Ron Paul: January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement: "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. "In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.' "This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary. "When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
I agree with the noting that the Lew Rockwell/Mises Institute libertarians and the Cato/Reason Magazine libertarians are entirely different animals. Libertarianism and the confederacy make strange bedfellows.
Cedarstripper
Ron Paul regularly posts a column on lewrockwell.com. Is he going to claim that he doesn't know what's written there either? I find it really disingenuous that a man with his education would claim that he didn't know what was going out under his name. If true, it means he really didn't care what was said in his name. If he did know, it makes him unqualified to be President. If, as he claims, he didn't know, it makes him unqualified to be President.
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove a thing."
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
More Than Historical Stupidity in Paul's Slavery Crack 
Linear Mode
