If Ron Paul were Abe Lincoln we would all be living in the Confederate States of America.
yngster said 02/29, 01:04 AM
Dr. Paul stated that Abe Lincoln should have bought all the slaves to avoid a Civil War. That is dumber than anything Hillary Clinton has said or done.
Consequentialist Libertarian said 02/29, 05:25 AM
I'm not saying the war was wrong, but I am saying that your argument is a non-sequitur. It does not follow logical reasoning. The Union won the war, therefore negating your original thesis. The Union's continued allowance of slavery among the Confederate states, did not lead to an expansion of slavery into the Union states; therefore any argument about slavery encompassing the entire United States is bunk.
The Confederacy was not interested in overtaking the Union; had the Union maintained neutrality towards the Confederate states, then there would have never been any problems.
And Ron Paul does bring up a valid point. Slavery was phased out in every other major country of the world, without war. The British bought the slaves and released them. 600,000 people did not need to die over something that most historians agree, would have ended within a few decades anyway.
As I stated, clearly the Confederacy lost the Civil War, so your comment that the Union (regardless of leadership) would have been overtaken by the Confederacy is wrong.
yngster said 03/01, 01:04 AM
Well... First of all, I will concede that the confederacy would not take over the your state but some of us would actually be living in the confederate states of america iff the Union Army would have lost the war. I grew up down south but I go to college in California now.
Second of all,I do agree with the fact that it is is better to avoid a war when ever possible but this is not England I dont seem to follow your logic. The Confederates started started the War. They attacked Ft. Sumter in South Carolina shortly after Abe Lincoln was elected presient. In order to preserve the United States of America there had to be a war. No way around it. The confederates knew that Abe would abolish slavery soon and they were desperatly trying to hang onto old ways. They wanted to be allowed to own slaves. They wouldn't give them up without a fight. Thats the difference between the situation in England and the situation in the United States. Your first argument makes Abe Lincoln out to be a War Hawk. If it would have been that simple he would bought the slaves.
Shoot... I ran out of room to prove my third point.
Consequentialist Libertarian said 03/01, 02:53 AM
In the comments you stated:
"Ok technicaly you're right. I should have worded that differently. Just so we can finish the debate lets debate about whether the Union would have lost the war or not if RP were President."
I'm glad you can admit defeat my friend. That is fine; we can debate that. I don't feel that there would have been a war if Ron Paul were president. He would not have mingled in states affairs or signed into law unfair legislation. Had Ron Paul been elected, the Civil War would have been either delayed or possibly diverted entirely; either way, it would never have occurred during his administration.
You are mistaken; Abe stated several times that he would not have ended slavery; the slaves were released during the war, so that they could rise up and fight on the side of the Union. The British employed this same tactic during the Revolutionary War.
If there was more money in it for them to sell the slaves, then they would have assuredly done that; that is simple economics. The English government offered enough money, so the slave-owners sold their slaves. Surely it would have been far less expensive to buy up the slaves, than to fund a war and lose 600,000 lives.
yngster said 03/01, 12:54 PM
The one thing that seems to be wrong with your argument is: The war began over a dispute about whether or not slavery would be allowed in the Western Territories. Since the confederacy wanted to expand slavery into the West it is inconceivable that they would simply sell their slaves. and the war was to preserve the Union. Is the best way to thwart a rebellion to throw money at it. NO! The Rebel's saw the direction that the union was heading and they did not want any part of it. It was War to preserve the Union and Abe Lincoln made it a war to abolish slavery in order to keep the border states from rebeling. If Ron Paul would have given the South all the money then the North would nopt have had many of the advantages it had. The North had more money than the south and were better supplied. The had Uniforms, the south did not. The had proper weapons. They had shoes. The south had the Nations finest generals and they had a superior Navy. If they would have had money to work with and supply their soldiers properly the outcome of the war would have been much different.
Consequentialist Libertarian said 03/02, 11:56 PM
More so than just a debate on the expansion of slavery, which had pretty much been resolved, the war was about states rights and economics. The North wanted tariffs on imports/exports because of its slumping economy, while the South wanted free trade because its economy was largely based off of global trade. The issue came to a debate about states rights.
The Union had a lot more money than the Confederacy; it also had far more people: 22 million vs. 9 million. Regardless of the amount of money given to the Confederate states, they still would not have had the population to defeat the North, nor would they have cared to try.
The Confederate states believed in states rights, so too does Ron Paul. Therefore, if Ron Paul had of been president, the Civil War would not have occured (atleast not while he was in office). He would have been against the unfair taxation on the South and he would not have scared the Confederacy into secession.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Wow, consequential...quite a wallop for the first round. And then calling for the forfeit now, its like babe ruth pointing to the stands. This yngster is in for the run of his life, huh?
Eaglevision | 02/29/08
Report Offensive Comment
neither argument is valid since slavery was not the route cause of the civil war, state rights was, so regardless if lincoln had bought all the slaves or not the war still would have been fought.
newby08 | 02/29/08
Report Offensive Comment
Newby, For the most part we are in agreement; BUT THAT IS NOT THE DEBATE. The debate is regarding whether or not the Union would have been overtaken by the Confederacy. Based on the vote count, it appears that you are are the only one who hasn't realized that. Please reread the arguments. Thanks
Consequentialist Libertarian | 02/29/08
Report Offensive Comment
I will always finish the debate even If I am doomed to lose. I should have known that the Genius Libertarian would pick up this debate.
yngster | 03/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
I would like to point out to the people at elephant-Donkey that there is not enought room for our arguments. We need more space.
yngster | 03/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
Ok technicaly you're right. I should have worded that differently. Just so we can finish the debate lets debate about whether the Union would have lost the war or not if RP were President. I admit that I am a newbe. I will be more carefull with my wording in the future.
yngster | 03/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
Haha, i appreciate your candor and the "genius" label. I agree, it is difficult to make a concise argument with 1200 characters, but it helps cut down on bloviation. The fact that you are willing to acknowledge your mistakes is a good sign. Many on this board spout off mindless rhetoric and fail to substantiate it.
Consequentialist Libertarian | 03/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
my point was that yngster's main argument deals with buying out the slave maeket so that's a non-factor because the civil war could not have been prevented. chances are the union still would have one simply because it was not a confederacy. the word confederacy implies that there is not a strong national army but state militia funded by state gov. and complete chaos within the military whih is a primary reason that the u.s. change from confederacy to federalism in the late 1700's
newby08 | 03/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
My point is also that the south didn't want to sell their slaves becasue the war began over a disagreement about whether or not it should be allowed in the Western Territories. They were intrested in expanding it.
yngster | 03/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
I'm sorry yngster but the war had very little to do with slavery at all. in fact, the south had already agreed to stop trading slaves and had begun phasing it out. the war was about wether or not individual states should have more power than the central government.
newby08 | 03/01/08
Report Offensive Comment
Didn't you guys read my third comment. I said the it was a war to preserve the Union and that it wasn't a war to abolish slavery until Lincoln made it one to keep the border states from rebelling. Newby... if it wasn't a war to abolish slavery to begin with than how is buying the slaves going to help anything? I don't follow your logic on that one.
yngster | 03/05/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
Come on buddy; you have to see the irrationality of your argument. You can hate Ron Paul and what he said, but that does not back up your thesis. I think off of merit, you should forfeit.
Consequentialist Libertarian | 02/29/08
Report Offensive Comment