Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Here's a question for Paul Supporters....?
...you say Paul always uses the Constitution as his guide....Where in the Constitution is the Federal govt. given the authority to buy slaves and set them free, as he says it should have done as an alternative to the Civil War?
Idontknow: Your answer is irrelevant to the question. Even if we assume that the Civil War was unconstitutional, it still doesn't explain how a man who claims to always follow the Constitution comes up with that particular scheme....
Shrieking Panda: Okay, but what he was suggesting was clearly unconstitutional. Not to mention the cost of buying nearly 4 million slaves, which, as Tommy G mentioned would not have stopped the southern states from purchasing more. What then?
Russert didn't come out of left field with this question. He was using an earlier quote that Dr. Paul made. Paul had already decided he thought the Civil War was a bad idea, so he should have had plenty of time to come up with a feasible alternative that fit within the framework of the Constitution.
Doug4jet: Scared? Hardly. I've already said, several times, in fact, that I agree with many of Paul's positions, and that if he wins the Republican nomination, I would vote for him in the general election.
That being said, why don't you try answering the question? He's all against bigger govt. (which I agree with), and overstepping Constitutional bounds (which I also agree with), and yet he suggested that the Govt buy all the existing slaves and set them free. How does that jibe with his positions?
Dear Beesting: I provided the link that shows exaxtly what he said. How about looking at it before you make foolish statements that only make you look dumb?
Labken: What does any of that have to do with whether or not the Fed Govt had the right to purchase slaves?
Donna K: Ah, but that would require that the Constitution be ammended to allow such power, and Paul did not say that. He just said the Govt should go out and do it. I thought he was against the govt having more power....
All: Look...none of you, not one, has yet to explain how Paul's statement jibes with his stated postions re: the Federal Govt and the powers it should have. Can you do so?
Beesting: Did you watch the link? Did the big bad media put words in his mouth that he did not say? Did they create a digital Ron Paul, and hire an impersonator to say that? Because here's the direct quote straight out of his mouth, on camera for the world to see:
"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."
Please, go ahead and spin that one for me. The man said what he said. If you can't accept that, you're not capable of making a rational decision on such weighty matters as to who our next President should be.
Donna K...so I'm part of the Northern Scum eh? That's an interesting accusation, given the fact that for all you know, I was born and bred in Alabama.
Yaakov: Congratulations. That is the closest thing to an intelligent, well thought out answer so far. However, that Article gave congress the right to raise taxes in order to support matters of national defence. Not to buy slaves for the armed forces. So you are still incorrect. But at least you actually thought out the question, for which I applaud you! Cheers!
All: Yes, I am fully aware that the true purpose of the Civil War was no to end slavery. That is still irrelevant to the question.
Idontknow: Please, find a quote from me, anywhere, that says that the Confederate States had slave ships. Or that the North did not. If you cannot do this, then kindly stick to the question, which had nothing to do with this. Or don't, if that suits your fancy more. Watching you guys spin is fairly entertaining, even if it is not educational.
Yaakov: You are correct. I went back and reread Article 8 in its entirety, and re-read, I must concede that section had nothing to do with taxation as I originally supposed. I still contend that Dr. Paul's idea is still inconsistent with his position on taxes, given the overwhelming cost that it would have incurred. I do not know what the average cost of a slave was, but this site quotes the journal of a slave trader in operation between the years 1807 and 1857 (which kind of invalidates the idea implied by some that because the slave trade was made illegal, the southern states had no more access to new slaves that weren't already born in the US).
http://www.celdf.org/DemocracySchool/AnOutlineofth...
In this quote, Captain Drake logs that prime condition slaves sold for $350 a head, while those in poorer condition sold for $250 each.
...continued....
Without further data with which to discern a more accurate avg, let's lowball it, and accept the lower price as average...I'm being lazy right now...
At $250 a head, the cost of purchasing the 4 million slaves that were owned at the time of the Civil War would have been $1 billion dollars. Adjusted for inflation, I belive that figure would have been astronomical. How does Dr. Paul suggest that the Union pay for all of this?
While this cost is far less than the $6 billion that was incurred by the Union to wage the Civil War, I still believe the measure would not have ended the issue, as the South was still capable of purchasing new slaves, contrary to earlier stated opinions, and, as you yourself said, slavery was only one of the issues behind the Civil War, and not the cause itself. Thus that $1 billion that would have been paid out would most likely have just increased the cost of the war, and not prevented it at all.
All of this being said, I must withdraw my argument that Dr. Paul's argument would have been unconstitutional, even though I still strongly disagree with the premise that it would have been the right thing to do. I tip my hat to you for attacking the question and not attempting to spin this into unrelated issues, as so many of your colleagues did. It's been a pleasure! :D
10 Answers
- YaakovLv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
Article 1, Section 8: "To raise and support armies...To provide and maintain a navy..."
Amendment 5: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Congress could have legally purchased the slaves for use in the navy or a temporary army, and then the President could have freed them.
-yk
P.S. The Civil War was only tangentially about slavery. It was one of several major issues that prompted the secession of the southern states, but the proximate cause of the war itself was secession. The southern states claimed the right to secede, and Congress and Lincoln decided to use military force to stop them.
P.P.S. The relevant portion of Art 1, Sec 8 is not about taxes. It grants Congress the authority to raise an army and to create a short-term tax for that purpose. It does not specify exactly how nor does it say that Congress could not buy slaves to serve as soldiers. Congress could either buy the slaves outright or they could draft them and compensate the former owners, which is why I also cited Amendment 5.
- labken1817Lv 61 decade ago
Slavery is addressed a couple times in the US constitution.
First of all according to the constitution a slave is counted on a 3/5 level in terms of a states population to determine congressional representation. Meaning that for every 5 slaves they would only be counted as 3.
Secondly the constitution gives the federal government the right to restrict slave trade.
And finally the Constitution states that a slave who escapes to a free state shall be returned to the slave state they orginated from.
- beestingLv 61 decade ago
Dear Mr. TJ, you seemed to have mis-interpreted Ron Paul's actual words, which I saw on a Ron Paul DVD disk.
What he said was:"There didn't have to be a bloody civil war fought to abolish slavery"!
The rest of the world abolished slavery without bloodshed. FACT: Slaves could buy their ownership papers from their owners, and become FREE before the civil war, with enough Gold.
Please get your facts straight!
{Slavery was legally abolished in 1865 when the 13th Constitutional Amendment was ratified,,,142 years ago.}
The Civil war was fought because South Carolina wanted to secede from the then United states and President Lincoln went to war against the Southern president Jefferson Davis, to try to save the whole Republic.
Northern President Lincoln Won.
Southern President Jefferson Davies Lost.
The cost in "ALL" American lives was horrendous!!!
As a consequence of winning the Civil war Lincoln freed the slaves,,,after the war was won,,,to further weaken the already impoverished south.
FROM YOUR LINK: "In Lincoln's inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- ********{How do we know this as fact, when the slaves of that time could neither read or write}******a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies.********* Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned fire. The Civil War had begun."
*******Which further proves my point that the war was not about slavery.
P. S. your link was a distortion!....And if you're gullible enough to believe that distortion, maybe that's why almost 4,000 Americans have been killed based on deception , in Iraq. The News Media DISTORTS TRUTH!!!!
*****************************************************
{edit # 2} Ron was suggesting in hindsight that all those lives didn't have to be lost over the slavery issue, because slaves were freed in other countries without wars being fought. It was a valid """OPINION"""!
*******************************************************
- Shrieking PandaLv 61 decade ago
He does use The Constitution as a guide, but it's also true that things have changed. That's why he doesn't want to literally enact every word of it but instead use it as a guide - balancing it with common sense, compassion and logic.
As for the Civil War, I believe he was trying to offer on the spot ideas for the prevention of a war that claimed 600,000 lives. He was illustrating that he would be innovative in his thinking and would go to war only as a last resort.
The Constitution does not address every conceivable situation and therefore it can only be used as a guide. It is fortunate that Dr. Paul is highly educated and richly experienced so he would look not only at The Constitution but also the intentions of our Founding Fathers.
Response: What would the Founding Fathers have done were they present at that time? Ron Paul interprets that they would have tried to find a peaceful solution. As for answering the question - as well as others - I would like to see him more prepared. The cool thing is that because he does not provide canned answers, you get to see his default setting - which is common sense, logic and peace.
- doug4jetsLv 71 decade ago
LOL
Wow, you're digging deeeep. You're scared.
I don't agree with Dr. Paul on all his stances, but he's the first real Patriot to have a shot at the presidency in a long, long time.
If he gets Wellstoned, there will be hell to pay.
Best of luck to you and yours. Happy holidays.
To Gray Wolf: Can you name a candidate who'll say they don't believe Jesus is magic? Thought not. None of them are going to align directly with anyones beliefs. We choose what's important and vote accordingly.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Nowhere, but that's the beauty of the constitution, it can be changed. Ron's solution was to free the slaves WITHOUT losing 600,000 lives. But of course, you'd rather Johnny Reb suffer right? You would do well to remember than MANY plantations were owned by you northern scum.
- 1 decade ago
Slave owning was legal until the 13th amendment abolishing slavery. You would have had the same result, a war, if the north tried buying all the slaves. Also, what would stop the south from buying more from Africa? All I can say is let the History be History, learn from it, but dont let it decide the future, we must think for ourselves.
- 1 decade ago
Where was the Constitutional authority to invade the South?
The tenth amendment actually prevents it.
Source(s): Do any of you realize that the slave trade was banned in 1801. The only ships that continued it were northern. Brown College was built on the slave trade. And no slave ship ever flew a Confederate flag over it. You people suck at history!!!! - Anonymous1 decade ago
Ron Paul supporters: Got the guts to watch and read this and maybe do a little MORE research for facts before voting for this guy?
