Comments 1 - 3 of 3 Search these comments
That's even too retarded for me. And I'm pro-slavery.
The slave owners would have realized that that the price of their slave's labor over a lifetime would probably dwarf any payment the union could have made. Not to mention, the free men that would be needed to replace the slaves would need wages to do the same work, which would have cost the slave holders even more. Financially I don't see how Ron Paul believes it could have made sense to slave owners.
If it had been an option, if all it would have taken was an offer of money, I don't think the civil war would have happened.
Ghost Of Christmas Past: Ron Paul Favored Federal Slaveowner Bailout Over Civil War
The late, great Tim Russert asked Paul about remarks he made to The Washington Post. “I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. ‘According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery.’â€
“Absolutely,†Paul replied. “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was that iron fist…â€
“We’d still have slavery,†Russert interjected.
“Oh, come on,†Paul replied, dismissively. “Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where the hatred lingered for 100 years? Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.â€
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ghost-of-christmas-past-ron-paul-favored-federal-slaveowner-bailout-over-civil-war/