# Ron Paul, pros/cons? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 9, 2012, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888 "2012-01-09T03:49:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/161 "2012-01-11T14:33:11Z")
> [@C4nuck](#): > > It is also widely known that Lincoln didn’t really care if slavery was abolished. Speaking of misconceptions… The correct statement is “Lincoln cared more about keeping the Union together than abolishing slavery”. And while it is peripheral to the Ron Paul saga, it is also questionable to refer to the Versailles treaty as “punitive” out of context, especially in terms of [reparations](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26macmillan.html?pagewanted=all). \*"In truth, the reparations, as the name suggests, were not intended as a punishment. They were meant to repair the damage done, mainly to Belgium and France, by the German invasion and subsequent four years of fighting. They would also help the Allies pay off huge loans they had taken to finance the war, mainly from the United States…The fact is that Germany could have managed to pay (reparations), but for political reasons chose not to. The German government repeatedly challenged the amount, asked for moratoriums or simply stated that it could not pay… The north of France and virtually the whole of Belgium had been occupied for four years by German soldiers who had driven off livestock, plundered factories and mines, and taken citizens to Germany for forced labor. The areas along the front lines, on the French-Belgian border, were wastelands. And we now have compelling evidence that German forces deliberately carried out a scorched-earth policy; they flooded mines, blew up bridges and stripped bare factories as they retreated. As one French newspaper asked in 1919, why should the French taxpayer pay to fix the damage the invaders had done?"\* It’s also worth noting that in 1870, the Germans had inflicted heavy reparations on the French (and taken territory) intending to cripple them for decades. Instead of reacting with illogical resentment and hostility as did the Germans, the French instead quickly raised money to pay off their debt and started over again. I see Ron Paul in the wake of New Hampshire is urging his losing opponents to drop out so that he can be the sole anti-Romney. Good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/162 "2012-01-11T14:57:48Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Speaking of misconceptions… > > The correct statement is “Lincoln cared more about keeping the Union together than abolishing slavery”. Absolutely. As a young man, Lincoln witnessed a slave auction in New Orleans and was repulsed by it. He did not like slavery, but his opposition to it had to take a back seat to his primary focus of keeping the Union together. Did he measure up to 21st century views of racial equality? No. But if you don’t think Lincoln hated the institution of slavery, you don’t know him well. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/163 "2012-01-11T15:12:56Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Absolutely. As a young man, Lincoln witnessed a slave auction in New Orleans and was repulsed by it. He did not like slavery, but his opposition to it had to take a back seat to his primary focus of keeping the Union together. Did he measure up to 21st century views of racial equality? No. But if you don’t think Lincoln hated the institution of slavery, you don’t know him well. The best source on all this that I’ve ever read is [_What Lincoln Believed,_](http://www.amazon.com/What-Lincoln-Believed-Convictions-President/dp/0385507399) by Michael Lind. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/164 "2012-01-11T15:47:07Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Can someone explain to me the pros and cons of non-interventionism? What kind of interventionism is good? Bad? Well, what is good and bad is an entirely subjective issue. To state Paul’s case as objectively as I can, he believes that the US should continue to be engaged in trade and diplomacy with other countries, but that the US should end pretty much every engagement in foreign affairs. He advocates closing overseas bases, ending NATO, withdrawing from the UN, stopping foreign aid (including things like stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa and US relief efforts for disasters like the tsunamis in Asia), and so on. He believes that this will make the US more liked, and will reduce the number of wars going on (he often says that US interventionism is a source of conflict in other countries, but also it really isn’t any of our business if two other countries go to war and don’t actually invade us). In my opinion, his views on foreign policy and stupid, dangerous, and heartless. If not for the US presence in Europe and Asia over the past 60 years, I would bet you that the Soviet Union probably would have started a war at some point, that North Korea probably would have invaded South Korea at some point, China probably would have invaded Taiwan, and there’s a chance that Japan and China might have gotten into some kind of fight. Yes, even though the US has been involved in some bad wars (Iraq, Vietnam), I think our engagement with the rest of the world has prevented some REALLY bad wars from happening. I think it’s totally immoral to advocate eliminating US foreign aid to stop the spread of AIDS, to refuse to help friendly countries recover from massive disasters, and to let poor people starve during famines. We’re the richest country in the world, and the taxpayers can spare a few billion dollars each year to reduce the amount of unneeded suffering in the world. I seriously think you have to be a totally heartless, immoral asshole to think that the US is justified in standing on the sidelines when millions are suffering from pestilence, disease, famine, and other tragedies that are either preventable or reversible. ---
**Author:** ![DaveBfd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DaveBfd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaveBfd)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/165 "2012-01-11T15:57:27Z")
I think a large con against RP is that he wants to remove mandatory vaccinations. The right to choose is important, but it is less important when ignorance can harm others… ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/166 "2012-01-11T16:04:50Z")
When are vaccinations mandatory? (sorry, ignorant question) I agree that vaccinations are important. I find it irresponsible when people distribute sickness because they have some misconception about vaccines. Ravenman: Thanks for the response. Makes sense and more or less follows my train of thought. The problem I have with his position is that it relies on potentially extreme judgment calls. We don’t know how things WOULD have been without our intervention, and so it becomes a tough call. Does evidence really suggest that our intervention has done more harm than good? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/167 "2012-01-11T16:54:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > In my opinion, his views on foreign policy and stupid, dangerous, and heartless. If not for the US presence in Europe and Asia over the past 60 years, I would bet you that the Soviet Union probably would have started a war at some point, that North Korea probably would have invaded South Korea at some point, China probably would have invaded Taiwan, and there’s a chance that Japan and China might have gotten into some kind of fight. Yes, even though the US has been involved in some bad wars (Iraq, Vietnam), I think our engagement with the rest of the world has prevented some REALLY bad wars from happening. I think the invention of the atomic bomb and nuclear proliferation was more of a deterrent than stationing troops in Asia and Germany. > [@](#): > > I think it’s totally immoral to advocate eliminating US foreign aid to stop the spread of AIDS, to refuse to help friendly countries recover from massive disasters, and to let poor people starve during famines. We’re the richest country in the world, and the taxpayers can spare a few billion dollars each year to reduce the amount of unneeded suffering in the world. I seriously think you have to be a totally heartless, immoral asshole to think that the US is justified in standing on the sidelines when millions are suffering from pestilence, disease, famine, and other tragedies that are either preventable or reversible. You’re a totally heartless, immoral asshole if you don’t advocate spending\* **other people’s money** \* on aid. If you advocate taking others’ money and sending it overseas you are being generous. Yes. There are millions suffering around the world. Aid does nothing to raise the standard of living in other nations. If you want to help these people, you can be an advocate for their cause, donate money, go over there and help out. The vast majority of liberals and progressives pay lip service to humanitarian efforts because it’s a whole lot easier than actually doing something productive for the cause they find so important. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/168 "2012-01-11T17:00:05Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > You’re a totally heartless, immoral asshole if you don’t advocate spending\* **other people’s money** \* on aid. If you advocate taking others’ money and sending it overseas you are being generous. Don’t give us that libertarian bullshit. Sometimes a government can do a lot more than a charity, and there’s nothing wrong with demanding yours do so – **always** with “other people’s money”. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/169 "2012-01-11T17:06:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Don’t give us that libertarian bullshit. Sometimes a government can do a lot more than a charity, and there’s nothing wrong with demanding yours do so – **always** with “other people’s money”. convincing argument. Yeah a government can do a lot more. A charity can’t throw you in jail for not donating. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/170 "2012-01-11T17:11:14Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Yes. There are millions suffering around the world. Aid does nothing to raise the standard of living in other nations. Please explain how programs that fight AIDS and malaria don’t raise the standard of living. > [@](#): > > If you want to help these people, you can be an advocate for their cause, donate money, go over there and help out. The vast majority of liberals and progressives pay lip service to humanitarian efforts because it’s a whole lot easier than actually doing something productive for the cause they find so important. Are people who do both (supporting foreign aid and supporting charities) exempt from this nonsense critique? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/171 "2012-01-11T17:13:42Z")
> [@C4nuck](#): > > The “queer” comment is laughable and quite amateur that you would even bring that up. Do you even know what that was about? Given the circumstances of that situation, Paul handled himself quite well IMO. And, I’d bet my left nut that you’ve used the term “queer” at some point in your lifetime. Then you’d lose your left nut because I’ve never used homophobic slurs. Similarly, I’ve never referred to blacks as “niggers” either. If you think that it’s ok for Paul to refer to a man as “a queer” if he thinks the man is making a pass at him does that also mean it would be okay for him to call a black man “a nigger” if he thought the man was trying to rob him? Are you saying that if Ron Paul had just been carjacked and we had a copy of a 911 call in which he complained about being robbed by “a nigger” then we shouldn’t consider him a racist? ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/172 "2012-01-11T17:24:40Z")
I personally think he’s racist, homophobic, and sexist, based on the evidence, but I don’t feel like any of that matters much unless it’s bad enough to tarnish international relations or if his policies oppress others. However I don’t know how he can be a defender of civil rights if all he’s really doing is passing the buck to the states. It doesn’t seem like an active push of liberty, unless you define liberty as “freedom from the over-arching Fed.” ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/173 "2012-01-11T17:25:07Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Aid does nothing to raise the standard of living in other nations. If you want to help these people, you can be an advocate for their cause, donate money, go over there and help out. Perhaps you can explain how individual actions and charities resulted in the eradication of smallpox? Oh, wait. That disease had been around for at least five thousand years, and it wasn’t until a combined, multinational, UN-led and foreign aid funded effort took place that the disease was eliminated in a span of less than two decades. Before eradication, literally millions of people were dying from the disease each year. No more. And it is the United Nations and foreign aid, including large amounts of money from the United States Government, that is responsible. Not rugged individualism, not libertarianism, not charity, not “every man for himself.” Good ol’ taxpayer dollars and foreign aid. End of story. Over time, governments working together can probably have a huge impact on HIV/AIDS, and certainly malaria and other diseases. If Ron Paul had his way and we stop foreign aid and withdraw from international organizations, the predictable result will be that millions of painful, agonizing deaths will not be prevented. The libertopia-fantasyland answer of, “I’m sure some charity will do it” has been proven false time after time, because big jobs like these cannot be done without the sustained effort that only governments can provide. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/174 "2012-01-11T17:29:05Z")
It seems like a function of scale. Government aid can actually provide impact whereas a charity has to put in a hell of a lot more effort to achieve even a fraction of the impact. For serious diseases, you need large impacts, I would think, to counteract the exponential nature/mutation of the viruses. \ ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/175 "2012-01-11T17:34:13Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > It seems like a function of scale. Government aid can actually provide impact whereas a charity has to put in a hell of a lot more effort to achieve even a fraction of the impact. For serious diseases, you need large impacts, I would think, to counteract the exponential nature/mutation of the viruses. \ You are totally, exactly right. It’s like going to the moon: sure, privately funded space travel will someday get there. But Uncle Sam got there almost half a century ago. Maybe some libertarian charity organization can arrange the vaccination against some disease for a town, county, or heck, maybe a whole region of a country. It takes international organizations and money to rid the whole damn world of a disease. There will always be moral questions about whether we do enough to help the poorest and meekest humans. But too often, the libertarian answer tends to be that there is no moral responsibility of a government to help anyone, and GOD FORBID we help a foreigner! ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/176 "2012-01-11T17:36:19Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Slavery would have ended - when? When slaves sought refuge in the free North. Slaves escaping was definitely a problem for the South because failure of some of the free states to follow the Fugitive Slave Act was listed as a grievance for secession. (Oh and I said “similar to Brazil” not immitating Brazil in every way possible, sheesh) > [@](#): > > Division of the nation long-term into two halves - “who knows if that would have turned out to be a bad thing”?? Jesus. Correct answer. > [@](#): > > Passing over the horribly illegal British blockade in response to Germany’s highly legal invasion of neutral Belgium: Starving thousands of citizens intentionally is something I find disgusting, call me a zany Paulite. [Winston Churchill](http://books.google.com/books?id=8HKQEJlAl9gC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=winston+churchill+starve+the+whole+population+men+women+and+children+old+young+wounded+and+sound+submission&source=bl&ots=tDbcjpOnQC&sig=f_snTdS2Wfa1DHvtKgLmg50ERw4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pMMNT7jkMsTf0QH3iMHVAg&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=winston%20churchill%20starve%20the%20whole%20population%20men%20women%20and%20children%20old%20young%20wounded%20and%20sound%20submission&f=false) on the topic: “The British blockade treated the whole of Germany as if it were a beleaguered fortress, and avowedly sought to starve the whole population- men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound- into submission.” > [@](#): > > how on earth do you get Wilson having “instigated war with Germany”? Wilson bent over backwards to keep the U.S. out of war. The Germans on the other hand had a nasty habit of killing Americans while torpedoing passenger vessels (Lusitania, anyone?), The Lusitania had munitions on board and… > [@](#): > > Lusitania departed Pier 54 in New York on 1 May 1915. The German Embassy in Washington had issued this warning on 22 April 1915.[41] > > Notice! > Travellers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk. > Imperial German Embassy > Washington, D.C. 22nd April 1915 Wilson insisted on the right of Americans to travel through a war zone on British vessels during an illegal blockade. > [@](#): > > 1940-41 - Ron Paul rejects Britain’s request of aid, Britain is forced to conclude a separate peace after losing the Battle of the Atlantic and Hitler solidifies his position in Europe. The war is prolonged, millions more die. Speculative fiction with no more plausibility than my prediction. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/177 "2012-01-11T17:54:21Z")
Congratulations, you can pat you all can pat yourself on the back for shouting down the cold hearted libertarian. You can rest well knowing that all of your pet causes are being taken care of by _ **someone else** _. I will tell you one thing though, industrialization is the only thing that’s gonna save Africa. We can send over our mesquito nets and I’m all for that, as well as the clean water initiatives. But, progressives should look inward toward their domestic policy. All of these protections placed on labor in the U.S. is preventing some of these third world nations from getting work, that’s a real problem. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/178 "2012-01-11T18:03:08Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Oh and I said “similar to Brazil” not immitating Brazil in every way possible, sheesh You’ve yet to explain how the situations were similar beyond the fact that both countries had slavery at one point. If you were saying that slavery ended in Brazil because all the slaves ran away (and that the same thing could have happened in the USA), it seems like you’re overlooking a number of important factors. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > We can send over our mesquito nets and I’m all for that, as well as the clean water initiatives. Aren’t they foreign aid, which can’t improve the standard of living? ---
**Author:** ![Terraplane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/74df32/32.png) [@Terraplane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terraplane)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/179 "2012-01-11T18:09:17Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > When slaves sought refuge in the free North What? All of them? Are _all_ of the slaves are supposed to sneak out one night and head north? Nobody’s going to notice this or stop them? You think this is something that could have actually happened? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/180 "2012-01-11T18:27:32Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You’ve yet to explain how the situations were similar beyond the fact that both countries had slavery at one point. If you were saying that slavery ended in Brazil because all the slaves ran away (and that the same thing could have happened in the USA), it seems like you’re overlooking a number of important factors. > [@Terraplane](#): > > What? All of them? Are _all_ of the slaves are supposed to sneak out one night and head north? Nobody’s going to notice this or stop them? You think this is something that could have actually happened? Abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison advocated Northern secession at one point for these reasons, I don’t think this view is so[unorthodox.](http://books.google.com/books?id=_fNI01FDwhoC&pg=PA353&lpg=PA353&dq=Slavery+was+doomed+politically+even+if+Lincoln+had+permitted+the+small+Gulf+Coast+Confederacy+to+depart+in+peace.+The+Republican-controlled+Congress+would+have+been+able+to+work+toward+emancipation+within+the+border+states,+where+slavery+was+already+declining.+In+due+course+the+Radicals+could+have+repealed+the+Fugitive+Slave+Law+of+1850.+With+chattels+fleeing+across+the+border+and+raising+slavery's+enforcement+costs,+the+peculiar+institution's+destruction+within+an+independent+cotton+South+was+inevitable.&source=bl&ots=YY1KmgzIqi&sig=Q28FZD1tbOIBwbmJIgOcauR1JaQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ZtMNT__gEYbL0QHx2cmABg&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Slavery%20was%20doomed%20politically%20even%20if%20Lincoln%20had%20permitted%20the%20small%20Gulf%20Coast%20Confederacy%20to%20depart%20in%20peace.%20The%20Republican-controlled%20Congress%20would%20have%20been%20able%20to%20work%20toward%20emancipation%20within%20the%20border%20states%2C%20where%20slavery%20was%20already%20declining.%20In%20due%20course%20the%20Radicals%20could%20have%20repealed%20the%20Fugitive%20Slave%20Law%20of%201850.%20With%20chattels%20fleeing%20across%20the%20border%20and%20raising%20slavery's%20enforcement%20costs%2C%20the%20peculiar%20institution's%20destruction%20within%20an%20independent%20cotton%20South%20was%20inevitable.&f=false) [QUOTE= Jeffrey Rogers Hummel] Slavery was doomed politically even if Lincoln had permitted the small Gulf Coast Confederacy to depart in peace. The Republican-controlled Congress would have been able to work toward emancipation within the border states, where slavery was already declining. In due course the Radicals could have repealed the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. With chattels fleeing across the border and raising slavery’s enforcement costs, the peculiar institution’s destruction within an independent cotton South was inevitable. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > Aren’t they foreign aid, which can’t improve the standard of living? These are worthy causes for charity, but industrialization is more sustainable. I think we would be better served to cut back on aid at least while we are running large deficits. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888.md?page=10)