msnbc.msn.com — "Barely a year into the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suggested buying slaves for $400 apiece under a "gradual emancipation" plan that would bring peace at less cost than several months of hostilities."
Mar 4, 2008 View in Crawl 4
gypsiMar 4, 2008
of course he did - he was no warmongering moron
Closed AccountMar 4, 2008
Maybe so, but then you would have to deal with the fact that slavery would still have been legal. I believe (and this is what separates me from Paul) that at a certain point it is the impetus of the Federal Government to stand up for individual rights over states rights (which in part was why the 14th amendment was passed)
bilabrinMar 5, 2008
I looked around the net a little. Opinions vary regarding the profitability of southern slavery but I remember learning in an upper level history class that it was for the most part unprofitable. Now, this is not to say that it was unproductive. Lost of cotton was shipped but margins on those profits were not as great as was widely believed. Furthermore, this makes sense on an imperial level as well, Evidence shows that morale and working conditions are key to productivity in any business. I know, were I a slave, I wouldn't go out of my way to make the plantation owner rich. I firmly believe that, especially for the sake of this argument, $400 in 1860's terms was more than enough incentive to sell slaves. I will grant that we, of course will never really know but that's my 2 cents anyway.
jsb199019Mar 5, 2008
They humiliated Ron Paul! They called him a nut in the first video! Give Tim Russert and especially MSNBC hell now we have proof that Ron Paul was right!E-mailmeet the press-----------> mtp@nbcuni.commorning joe --------------> <a class="user" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/</a>Watch either of these two videos to refresh you memory:<a class="user" href="http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=356">http://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=356</a> (watch this especially)<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-iJP4BAAQ4&feature">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-iJP4BAAQ4&feature</a> ... (skip to 6:20)Takes 5 minutes. VIVA LA REVOLUTION!
kronso23Mar 5, 2008
Yes, exactly what V3n0M said, if Ron Paul was the president, you could be a polygamist if you wanted, like any law is going to prevent polygamy as it is now... Ron Paul supports all associations that anyone makes, gay, straight, with an animal or several wives. It's not his job to tell you who and what to f**k.
fishrhuman2Mar 6, 2008
This is very interesting, but the Civil War was not about slavery until it was already well underway. The war was about the secession of the southern United States from the rest of the country. The bringing of slavery into the war was a brilliant political move by Lincoln--that's how this "war on terror" thing was supposed to work (declaring war on a concept), but the people weren't quite as unified this time around.
Closed AccountMar 7, 2008
You are wrong and ron paul is correct... just let it go. just like we could have purchased a regime change in Iraq and a killing of osama. we could have purchased the slaves at a fraction of what it cost to run the war. with NO DEATHS.
grisziMar 14, 2008
This is completely made up..