3 ms·
Yes I would have. Much better than killing half a million people in a pointless civil war. Actually the English bought out the slave owners in the West Indies
by danieltillett 10y ago
Yes I would have. Much better than killing half a million people in a pointless civil war.
Actually the English bought out the slave owners in the West Indies when they outlawed slavery and it worked fine [1].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
- lern_too_spel 10y agoLincoln was a much smarter man than Ron Paul, with his limited education in US history, thinks he was. https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/277073/ https://www.google.com/amp/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/2... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation "During the Civil War, in 1861, President Lincoln drafted an act to be introduced before the legislature of Delaware, one of the four non-free states that remained loyal, for compensated emancipation. However this was narrowly defeated. Lincoln also was behind national legislation towards the same end, but the southern states, now in full rebellion, ignored the proposals. "Only in the District of Columbia, which fell under direct Federal auspices, was compensated emancipation enacted."
- mark_edward 10y agoSo not only would you have let men walk off scot-free after being slavedrivers, you would have rewarded them with cash. But I bet you care about precedents and incentives right?
- danieltillett 10y agoIf it freed the slaves without bloodshed then yes. The English approach was much better than the American approach.