Forty-three: More Pauline History Rewrites

Ron Paul has suggested that the Civil War was unnecessary. It was unfortunate, and slavery could have been eradicated by other mechanisms besides warfare. He points to the case of the British Empire, where the government paid compensation to the slaveowners for their slaves, and where slavery was brought to an end peacefully.

It goes without saying that this is not a very well thought out proposition on Paul’s part. For two reasons: first, because the situation in the United States was fundamentally different from that in the British Empire – on so many levels; second, because the notion that the U.S. government would pay this kind of compensation to one particular segment of the population, fundamentally undermines Paul’s own claims about the Constitution not really allowing such things, and that the government should remain small and should stay out of the economy.

I will take these, very briefly, in turn. Unlike in the United States, slaveholding in the British system (by and large) was not at the metropole – it was in the periphery of the empire. While slaveholders had lobbyists at Parliament, their representatives did not represent half of the constituencies of that body – as was the case in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Moreover, in Britain in the 1830s the wealth of the slaveholding areas of the empire did not compare with the wealth of the slaveholding States in the 1850s. Those 50 percent of the States where slavery existed were going through a major economic boom founded primarily on the profit from cotton, and from the collateral associated with property from the bodies of the slaves. To get slaveholders to back down from their position that their civilization was superior to that of a free labor economy – both economically and morally – was not something that could be done by mere compensation. Everyone knew this at the time and a Ron Paul coming along to suggest this idea would have been laughed out of court – both in South Carolina and in Massachusetts. One could go on, but if these points alone aren’t sufficient to make the case, then no amount of evidence would suffice for someone proposing such a specious argument.

But, add to this, how does a government that is supposed to have no income tax on which to draw revenue compensate slaveowners for the value of their property in slaves? How would then one not also compensate the slaves for their years of unpaid labor (though Paul wouldn't propose this, I am sure)? Such an act to compensate slaveowners would be a major intervention in the economy by the government, and if it was Constitutional do this, it would then be a precedent for any other similar act of government -- e.g. the New Deal, the War on Poverty (against which Ron Paul now rails). Dr. Paul may have some sensible things to say about foreign policy, though he invariably arrives at these things by a logic that undermines the soundness of what he is saying, but these particular economic ramblings of his are just sheer nonsense.