No NAU
Regular Member
imported post
I believe with some research one can find very valid historians who believe the war between north and south was fought over stopping the dissolution of the union through cesession of the southern states and slavery was not the true driving force. I do not have a specific link to this view.
Full quote of Dr. Paul's Civil War/War of Northern Agression.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/page/4/
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.
I believe with some research one can find very valid historians who believe the war between north and south was fought over stopping the dissolution of the union through cesession of the southern states and slavery was not the true driving force. I do not have a specific link to this view.
Full quote of Dr. Paul's Civil War/War of Northern Agression.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/page/4/
MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.
REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.