Ron Paul: American Civil War Was Unnecessary
This has gotten a bit of attention already, but we wanted to flag it for you. It's Ron Paul in an interview with Tim Russert yesterday asserting that the American Civil War was unnecessary. His take: Other countries ended slavery without a civil war -- why not America? Paul theorizes that the north could have simply bought all the slaves and released them...
Comments (89)
P. Rich wrote on December 24, 2007 11:20 AM:And we would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling northeners.
All in all, Ron Paul sounds pretty mainstream Republican to me.
Greg wrote on December 24, 2007 11:32 AM:heh -- indeed...
Heraldblog wrote on December 24, 2007 11:32 AM:The Civil War was about more than slavery. In fact, only a small percentage of southerners owned slaves, but succession had widespread support. The southern economy was all about cotton, and cotton growers needed cheap labor to be competitive. Buying all the slaves and releasing them would have put the southern economy in the dumpster. I suppose the federal gov't could have subsidized southern agricultural wages. I'm sure Ron Paul would have been all for that.
Helter wrote on December 24, 2007 11:42 AM:I hope Paul is a better doctor than he is a historian. Compensating slave holders was discussed very early on in the republic but was deemed impossible given the costs involved.
Steve wrote on December 24, 2007 11:47 AM:Ron Paul just isn't that smart. But I've known that for a long time.
Blown away wrote on December 24, 2007 11:51 AM:Property rights über alles.
That was his overarching theme through the entire interview, to the point where it becomes clear that he sees slaves as property, property that was taken from property holders unfairly.
What a repugnant view. Humans are not property.
Steve wrote on December 24, 2007 11:56 AM:I guess that Ron Paul skipped fifth grade US history, or do they teach this stuff in the South? Or he just forgot that the North didn't start the civil war to free the slaves (or start it for any other reason). The South began the civil war, officially called the War of the Rebellion, because it was angry with those in the North that wanted to slow or stop the expansion of slavery in the West. And to the South it appeared that Lincoln's election would definitely slow the expansion of slavery, since that was one of his concerns.
Dave wrote on December 24, 2007 12:03 PM:I was just reading the book "April 1865" yesterday, and it noted that in March of 1865 at the Hampton Roads peace conference between Lincoln, Seward and Confederate Vice-president Alexander Stevens, that Lincoln offered to compensate the Southern states for the loss of their slaves if they would lay down their arms. Stevens turned down the offer.
Usually Itisa Northerner wrote on December 24, 2007 12:05 PM:Usually it is someone from the north, especially someone who isn't willing to admit there is racism in the north, who confuses the basic facts of the civil war. The civil war was an economic war.
The north did not start the civil war to free the slaves. This is apparent because, the north did not start it. The south started it to secede due to economic oppression from the north. Lincoln "freed" the slaves (not even in territories under his control at the time) to generate chaos in the south.
It would be nice if we could at least get some basic facts of history straight.
Kansas-City-Dem wrote on December 24, 2007 12:10 PM:One indicator of a person having BAD judgement is when they attempt to discuss topics about which they are TOTALLY ignorant. Really bad judgement is doing it on national tv.
chupacabra wrote on December 24, 2007 12:34 PM:>>> It would be nice if we could at least get some basic facts of history straight.
Hear, hear!!
Notably absent in the post-war period was the phenomenon of northern "liberators" taking former slaves North with them at war's end, the better to enjoy the fruits of Freedom, Liberty and Emancipation.
M Miller wrote on December 24, 2007 12:50 PM:A lot of people downplay the slavery aspect of the Civil War. All in all succession came because of slavery.
The rich slave owners with the big plantations and the politicians that represented them found a good way to get the people that didn't have enough money for slaves and had to work their butt off just for food to go to war. Their rights! Secession! Doesn't it sound similar to the way things happen nowadays?
In the North, save the union! Preserve freedom!
Your own defense and your way of life is what gets people to fight on both sides but all in all, I don't see where the big urgency was on either side... other than SLAVERY.
Slavery, slavery, slavery.
One last thing. The south knew the north was going to not take it if they succeeded before they did. The north didn't have to be that way, the south didn't have to be that way. Who was the first shots fired by though?
The answer to it all: The COTTON GIN!
w action wrote on December 24, 2007 1:05 PM:Steve: I think you're right to suggest that southern schools didn't teach it. Plus we're not just talking south, this is Texas! Texas seceded from Mexico (remember the Alamo!) in order to preserve slavery, illegal since the 1700s in Mexico. It joined the union shortly before the Civil War on the promise it could be a slave state. Not only is Paul an idiot, he was miseducated into noncompoopery by the State of Texas, which has the most top-down, state-run systems of indoctrination of youth in America. Why do the rest of us allow Texans to EVER have power?
Jim Beam wrote on December 24, 2007 1:27 PM:Seems like a lot of people have been hitting the cotton gin....
A handful of New England upper crust who were overly impressed with themselves objected to slavery on moral grounds. The main battle was between raw material (including farm goods) producing regions and manufacturing goods. To the degree that the "moral" north opposed slavery, it was based on regional economic advantage.
The slave/no slave argument remains a side event to the main story and is meaningless when you consider WHO started the war.
None of this is to recommend slavery. The point is simply to put to rest the arrogance of those who somehow believe the north engaged the south for moral reasons. Their "morality" consisted of economic advantage for manufacturing. Changing views on slavery would have had not impact on the larger issue.
Nick wrote on December 24, 2007 1:30 PM:We should have let the South secede ... pushed them out the door, actually. Our worst mistake, EVER. Can you imagine our country without the Confederate states pulling us down with their racism and general backwardness? An opportunity lost. And I'm not kidding.
Fud wrote on December 24, 2007 1:39 PM:I'm surprised Ron Paul would suggest that taxpayer money be spent to buy slaves. Can't the free market take of this?
Avtar Khalsa wrote on December 24, 2007 2:35 PM:Ron Paul is, of course, dead wrong. The Civil War was absolutely necessary. A series of compromises going back to the writing of the Constitution (3/5 Compromise) were crafted specifically to keep the South in the United States. All of those compromises revolved around the question of slavery (how to count slaves in terms of congressional representation, how to maintain the fragile balance between slave and free states as western territories were admitted as states, etc.).
South Carolina had been threatening to leave the Union for a couple of decades prior to taking that step, then attacking the United States Army installation at Fort Sumter. That was an overt and violent act of insurrection.
The South chose to make war because it saw the election of Lincoln as a sign that they would no longer get their way through further compromise.
The War was perhaps unavoidable from the birth of the country. We just managed to stall it for a few decades.
anon wrote on December 24, 2007 3:30 PM:This is what an observer named Abraham Lincoln said about the relation of the civil war to slavery:
"Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether'"
The Civil War was about slavery, the way an earthquake in Southern California is about the San Andreas fault.
My great-great-grandfather and several of his kin rode with a Confederate calvary. My family still lives in the state where they joined up. With no disrespect to their courage or my filial affection for ancestors, they were on the wrong side.
(Lincoln's full second inaugural sppech can be found at the link below.)
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/inaug2.htm
Mark wrote on December 24, 2007 3:34 PM:Seems most of the comments about this both miss the point (namely, Ron Paul's ridiculous and ingnorance riddled assertion)while at the same time allow for similar absurdities to be pronounced by most of the posters. (*Note Avtar Khalsa is the exception here.)
Historical evidence would support the thoery that the Southern assertion that slavery was not at all an issue is patently false (witness the Missouri Compromise etc.) as is the Northern assertion that moral imperative was their motivation (witness the New York Draft Riots and secesion movements).
At any rate, I can't see why Paul's remark sparks debate over the causes of the war rather than agreement that the remark is so far removed from reality that it should preclude him for consideration for anyone's vote.
JIM wrote on December 24, 2007 3:46 PM:Rightly or wrongly Lincoln knew he would provoke the South to attack Ft Sumter when he sent in Union resupply ships to this Fort and which stated the war. Just like FDR provoked the Japs to attack us.... maybe they were right to start these wars but we were manpulated into them.
zakko wrote on December 24, 2007 4:05 PM:Actually Lincoln made a similar proposal to the Congress and it was rejected. Read "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin
jim wrote on December 24, 2007 4:06 PM:the civil war was fought for economic reasons. the south imported their goods from europe because they were better quality and cheaper than the goods produced in the north. so after the morril tariff was passed and lincoln was elected. lincoln being an ardent industrialist. the south saw that they were being forced to sell their cotton to the north at a lower price than they could get for it overseas and they were also being forced to pay more for lower quality goods. throw on top of that the slavery tensions and it seems clear that their whole way of life was being threatend. also ask urself y every other us military base in the south was handed over peacefully but they refused to hand over fort sumter.
slavery could hav been solved peacefully there were just as many anti slavery groups in the south as there were in the north
You know, instead of spewing venom about things you know nothing about, you could try using Google for a few minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation
"Nearly all countries that eliminated slavery did so through some form of compensated emancipation."
This includes most of the world's major empires (e.g. Britain, Spain, France).
Frankly I wished I had studied history in college, because the high school crap you learn is the kind of crap that produces ignorant comments like the above posters' comments, who are merely representative of the vast majority of Americans.
I have no idea if every idea from Ron Paul makes sense, but every time I start reading about one that at first seems off the wall (because I too had lousy social studies classes in high school), I learn something that I never knew.
Frankly I wish the Democrats were as informed about history and economics as Ron Paul was. I also wish they were as honest and uncalculating as Ron Paul (OK, Kucinich and Gravel are, but they don't have 20+ million in the bank). Then I would have no qualms about voting for my favorite Democratic candidate.
colonpowwow wrote on December 24, 2007 4:51 PM:Again - this is the anti-women's rights, fundy crackpot who introduced legislation on the floor of the House that would define that life begins at conception. Maybe his position would be that individual states could prosecute or not-prosecute women and their doctors who advocated or performed an abortion as murderers if they wished - WTF!?!
I really don't understand the fascination with this loon.
Carey wrote on December 24, 2007 4:53 PM:First, a suggestion to posters: if you cite Wikipedia, you really cost yourself a lot of credibility. Also, if you think Paul has a grasp of economic issues, watch (or read the transcript) of the portion of this interview discussing tax policy. It does not require much knowledge of economics to realize Paul's ideas are both illogical and impractical. Also, as far as honesty goes, check out Paul and Russert's discussion of earmarks. Paul's hypocrisy on an issue of fundamental importance to libertarians is staggering.
jon wrote on December 24, 2007 5:09 PM:Thanks Jeff from above for your posting. Paul said nothing of his position on people as property, nor was his comment so far off topic as someone earlier had said. Russert was asking the question, most of which were comming from fragments of quotations he had made in 80's. Twenty or more years ago and had nothing to do with the platform he was running on today for the election that will be in 2008. Its kind of strange how they chose the title of this posting. At first look you might get offended but if you actually listen and look at the context of the interview that he gave it in, it makes alot of sense.
abulafia wrote on December 24, 2007 5:31 PM:Read Calhoun's orations on state's rights. There was the issue over Federal meddling in a state's right to control it's domestic issues. It was economic issues that turned state's right's issues into the sectional division between north and south and slavery was an issue because the southern economy, already unstable, could not exist economically without it. It would be specious to say the United States was founded on slavery, but slavery was most certainly accommodated in it's founding; in fact, most delegates at the Constitutional convention opposed it. If you just focus on the state's rights issue, the Civil War isn't even over, in fact the extreme growth of modern federal government makes the issue as important now as then. Does California have the right to legalize medical marijuana, does Oregon get to let
people die with dignity, does Massachusettes get to let gay people get married, does Nevada get to have prostitution and gambling...do the states control their domestic policies or does the federal government run the whole show? This is our Great Experiment in America, sharing powers. The pall that slavery cast over the state's rights issue makes state's rights a dirty word, when it's actually an issue at the political forefront today.
Does anyone care to hear the portion about civil liberties? Why are you getting distracted with an over 100 year war when we are being spied on today?
MR. RUSSERT: But let me go back to this ad. You do not believe that Mike Huckabee, that ad commercial represents the potential of fascism in the form of a cross.
REP. PAUL: No. But I think this country, a movement in the last 100 years, is moving toward fascism. Fascism today, the softer term, because people have different definition of fascism, is corporatism when the military industrial complex runs the show, when the--in the name of security pay--pass the Patriot Act. You don't vote for it, you know, you're not patriotic America. If you don't support the troops and you don't support--if you don't support the war you don't support the troops. It's that kind of antagonism. But we have more corporatism and more abuse of our civil liberties, more loss of our privacy, national ID cards, all this stuff coming has a fascist tone to it. And the country's moving in that direction. That's what I'm thinking about. This was not personalized. I never even used my opponents names if you, if you notice.
MR. RUSSERT: So you think we're close to fascism?
REP. PAUL: I think we're approaching it very close. One--there's one, there's one documentary that's been put out recently that has generated a lot of interest called "Freedom to Fascism." And we're moving in that direction. Were not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer fascism. Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business. So you have the military industrial complex, you have the medical industrial complex, you have the financial industry, you have the communications industry. They go to Washington and spend hundreds of millions of dollars. That's where the control is. I call that a soft form of fascism, something that is very dangerous.
Sig wrote on December 24, 2007 6:12 PM:Secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or political entity.
Succession is the act or process of following in order or sequence. (It is not to be confused with secession, the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or political entity).
________________________
Come on, folks!
One wonders what Mr Paul's point was in suggesting the Civil War was unnecessary. Was this simply more advocacy of an ideological point of view that all things can be solved by unfettered capitalism? I assume that he suggests not that the US government fund the purchase of slaves from private owners of human beings, but that individuals from the north who were opposed to slavery raise the capital and make the commercial purchase of human beings enslaved in the slave states. If his views of capitalism were to hold, wouldn't this just have increased slavery and the slave trade? Southerners would be encouraged to profit in human trafficking by importing or "breeding" more humans to supply new buyers/customers in the north - his theory creates a market that can never be satisfied (northerners freeing the slaves purchased) and would increase human trafficking and slavery, and would provide economic competition to southern plantation agribusiness for workers.
Anyway that you think about his answer, it's poorly reasoned, ill-conceived, and morally bankrupt.
ps. This is why I love the American Flag - it remains a perennial symbol to me of the triumph of the Union over the wickedness of slavery and of the defeat of the Confederacy. "Yes, we'll rally 'round the flag, boys, yes, we'll rally 'round the flag, shouting the battle cry of FREEDOM."
Jim Wiseman wrote on December 24, 2007 6:39 PM:Hi,
Please read Lincoln's speeches. Unless you think him a complete liar, he was adamantly opposed to slavery on moral grounds; furthermore, he thought it anathema to the American principles of government as enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. He asseterted this over and over again; in the "House Divided" speech, in the debates with Douglas, in the Cooper's Union address, and in the Second Inaugural. In this last speech he also makes clear that he considers slavery to be the root cause of the war- in his view, without slavery, there would never have been a war. He makes this same point in many, many private letters. Lincoln's view was for a long time a minority view, but modern historical research has tended to back it up, as the History profession has freed itself from the ideological biases of Southern revisionism, and Marxism.
I grew up in Austin, and can testify that Texans were indeed woefully ill educated about the civil war, and especially its aftermath. I'm sorry Ron Paul is only know confronting issues of historical accuracy that I had to face as a freshman in college.
MrWonderful wrote on December 24, 2007 6:54 PM:Even if the North could have bought all the slaves, what does Paul think the South would have done the next day? Worked their plantations and farms themselves?
"Retired"? Used the money to all become bankers and investors? It's idiotic.
Glen Parker wrote on December 24, 2007 6:59 PM:Should there have been a permanent Confederate States of America?
If so, what nation should the yet-to-be states be part of?
The secession of the conferate states began before Lincoln became President.
Public education was part of our soul since before the civil war.
The discission of what to invade when is determined by the wisdom of the president.
A flat 23% federal sales tax is very regressive. Those that have incomes so low to have to pay taxes at all would have to pay this tax for every thing purchased. Those that make more money will save more and buy less. This is good for saving money but would cause a depression from everyone saving and not buying because of the tax. I cannot agree with much with Ron Paul.
First, Ron Paul attended a public school in Pennsylvania. Quite a ways north of the Mason-Dixon line.
Secondly, can any of you historical geniuses explain this line from Lincoln's first inaugural address:
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Patrick wrote on December 24, 2007 7:46 PM:Was it better to send 600,000 people to their death in a war or work to end slavery in a peaceful way? I am sure that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld would also have chosen war. Ron Paul did not defend slavery.
Spotty Dog wrote on December 24, 2007 8:14 PM:Patrick - point taken, if there was a way to peaceably end slavery, would that have been a better way that the deaths of over a half million? Yes, of course...
But the Ron Paul solution is like "reasoning" if Americans increase the amount of oil we buy from foreign sources, we'll have more of it, they have less of it, and we'll be ultimately freeing ourselves from dependence on imported oil. It has a logic to it, but not much.
If he had stopped himself at "finding a peaceful solution to war" that might have been okay, but he shot himself in the sack when he went with 'the commercial market solution' to the pernicious wickedness of human slavery.
jasper wrote on December 24, 2007 9:22 PM:When Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address at Pearl Harbor, he said something like that.
sick of stupid people being stupid wrote on December 24, 2007 9:52 PM:Blown away wrote on December 24, 2007 11:51 AM:
"What a repugnant view. Humans are not property."
Well, then please explain why they were being bought and sold just like property. Or maybe you can explain the decision on the Dread Scott case.
Most of you morons are too stupid to see that the Civil War was too much Good o'l Boy testrostone in a pissing contest. It was all about being to do business they way the south wanted. Using States rights as the pull for the stupid people. Blow the smoke out from your eyes and wake up.
Ron Paul is the only smart man using his brain instead of his ego to try and get our country back on track.
NorthernCross wrote on December 24, 2007 10:53 PM:Good grief, his own party fought a damn war that freed the slaves. Is this guy a Republican or some 19th century Democrat in GOP clothing?
hello_world wrote on December 24, 2007 11:47 PM:This is Paul being true to the small base of supporters that first began to champion him to the rest of the internet. A short Google search will reveal the good doctor's past association with some of the more...ahhemm...questionable fringe groups. He's Stormfront's candidate of choice for a reason.
To address his assertion here, basically Paul is saying that he would have preferred the US Government to have monetarily subsidized the people engaged in the morally bankrupt endeavor of slavery, human trafficking, and forced breeding. Spotty Dog is exactly right about this having the effect of ultimately encouraging the slave trade. Ron Paul seems to be saying that it would have been better to allow blacks in this country to become 'obsolete property' than to have fought to definitively given rights to an entire race of people. Anyone ask Ron Paul lately how he feels about WWII?
I for one am grateful that, while there are many shameful episodes in this country's history, the overarching lasting effect of the Civil War was that they did the right thing, preserved the Union, and freed the slaves in such a way that there could be no ambiguity about the official the status of African Americans in this country or the institution of slavery.
Don wrote on December 25, 2007 1:53 AM:If such a scheme could have been pulled off it would have cost quite the pretty penny. Kinda hard to pay for that when you're opposed to most taxes.
whiteyward wrote on December 25, 2007 2:14 AM:The Civil war was the final fight of the revolutionary war. The Washingtons and many other leading familys were rich british catholics that got run out of england by the protestants, the civil war was the protestant effort to run the catholics out of the Louisiana purchase, same as the spanish war was protestant north running the catholics out of Texas and the south west.
Crispin wrote on December 25, 2007 4:59 AM:Jeff Winchell wrote on December 24, 2007
4:17 PM:
You know, instead of spewing venom about things you know nothing about, you could try using Google for a few minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation
"Nearly all countries that eliminated slavery did so through some form of compensated emancipation."
This includes most of the world's major empires (e.g. Britain, Spain, France).
Frankly I wished I had studied history in college, because the high school crap you learn is the kind of crap that produces ignorant comments like the above posters' comments, who are merely representative of the vast majority of Americans.
I have no idea if every idea from Ron Paul makes sense, but every time I start reading about one that at first seems off the wall (because I too had lousy social studies classes in high school), I learn something that I never knew.
Frankly I wish the Democrats were as informed about history and economics as Ron Paul was. I also wish they were as honest and uncalculating as Ron Paul (OK, Kucinich and Gravel are, but they don't have 20+ million in the bank). Then I would have no qualms about voting for my favorite Democratic candidate.
THANK YOU FOR THIS! PEOPLE IN AMERICAN SOCIETY STILL BELIEVE IN THE GLORY OF A RIDICULOUS WAR THAT KILLED 625,000 PEOPLE. LINCOLN ALSO WAIVED HABEAS CORPUS AND TOOK AUTHORITARIAN POWERS DURING THE CIVIL WAR. OUR COLLEGE AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BOOKS NEVER DISCUSS THE DARK SIDE OF AMERICAN HISTORY. IT DOES EXIST AND RON PAUL POINTING THIS OUT ON A SHOW WITH A SECOND RATE JOURNALIST LIKE TIM RUSSERT WAS A WONDERFUL TACTIC. SECONDLY, RUSSERT ACCUSING PAUL OF BRINGING HOME MONEY FOR HIS DISTRICT WERE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TACTICS. IT IS HIS JOB AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE TO MAKE THESE CLAIMS FOR HIS PEOPLE. THE KEY POINT IS THAT HE VOTED AGAINST THE PORK SPENDING BILLS. WHY ARE WE ARGUING THIS POINT WHEN SO MANY OF THE OTHER CANDIDATES ARE CORRUPT AND INDECISIVE? THIS ERA OF DISINFORMATION CONTINUES AND ALL I SEE IS CONFUSION AMONG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. IF YOU DO YOUR PROPER RESEARCH, MAYBE YOU CAN FIND OUT THE ACTUAL TRUTH AND NOT THE DISTORTIONS THAT ARE BEING EXERCISED IN OUR CORPORATE MEDIA ON A DAILY BASIS.
colonpowwow wrote on December 25, 2007 10:44 AM:Uh, again, sorry to fart in the Church of Saint Paul, but didn't the guy introduce legislation on the floor of the House stating as fact that life begins at conception?
Women's rights anyone?
Can't wait until this fool drops out. Although the fools who were departed from their money recently have given him more life than he deserves.
Edward wrote on December 25, 2007 10:52 AM:Helter,
I hope Paul is a better doctor than he is a historian. Compensating slave holders was discussed very early on in the republic but was deemed impossible given the costs involved.
As opposed to the expense of fighting a four year civil war and the loss of 600000 Americans.
I hope when you grow up you become neither a doctor nor a historian, given how obviously stupid you are.
Edward wrote on December 25, 2007 10:56 AM:Steve,
I guess that Ron Paul skipped fifth grade US history, or do they teach this stuff in the South? Or he just forgot that the North didn't start the civil war to free the slaves (or start it for any other reason). The South began the civil war, officially called the War of the Rebellion, because it was angry with those in the North that wanted to slow or stop the expansion of slavery in the West. And to the South it appeared that Lincoln's election would definitely slow the expansion of slavery, since that was one of his concerns.
Yeah, right. The South started the Civil War... just the same way that Israel started the Six Day War.
Maybe the problem you have with Dr. Paul is that he kept studying history AFTER the fifth grade, unlike some folks around here, LOSER.
colonpowpow
Women's rights anyone?
Perhaps you can tell us, chapter and verse, just where in the US Constitution, the right to abortion is spelled out?
What's that? You can't?
Oh... maybe because IT DOESN'T EXIST... DUMBASS!!
Edward wrote on December 25, 2007 11:04 AM:The people who write are are stupid beyond belief.
You all are really happy the US fought the Civil War? Saying that is saying you are really happy with 100 years of racial hatred in this country, brought about by resentment of Reconstruction.
Please don't let me catch any of you bitching about the Fed cracking down on states legalizing mj for medical use, because it was the Civil War that established the Fed's ability to ignore the Tenth Amendment.
And remember, when Roe vs. Wade is struck down, and Congress outlaws abortion across the US, thank old Abe Lincoln for establishing a strong Federal government.
Of course, bitching from behind computer screens is all you peopel are good for, so when it happens, you will be the people who so richly deserve it.
ohmygod wrote on December 25, 2007 11:40 AM:The south seceded because of the election of Lincoln who opposed the spread of slavery to territories acquired during the Mexican War. Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union. End of story.
The Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves in the territories in the control of traitors because the slaves were seen as contraband of war who aided the confederate war effort. He did not free them in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri because those states were under Federal control (more or less) and slavery was legal.
Sometimes I think people need to meet a competancy exam before posting.
The anger that seems to accompany the comments on Huff post articles is really telling - Ron Paul represents a threat not only to Repulican candidates, but to Dems as well. He doesn't have a great chance of being elected right now, but his earnest no bs style is winning over droves of citizens and is cutting through the spin (lies) of political hacks on both sides.
This is what so many of us want. Forget the cult of personality, "electibility", and the middle school taunts that have fueled the political debate for the past 20 years. This guy is the real deal.
So he does not have the economic finesse of Alan Greenspan or the historical aplomb of an ivy league history department chair - big deal. No presidential candidate knows absolutely everything. Instead most just act as though they do. Ron Paul is focused on getting big government off our backs and he talks straight. I am liking him more and more and I have been a liberal dem my whole life.
Some real bad spellers here. It's "secession," not "succession," that relates to the Southern states breaking away from the Union. They seceded, but not succeed in their efforts.
Fifth grade history class? How about third-grade spelling?
L. Steven wrote on December 25, 2007 1:54 PM:So, Ron Paul said something that might have provoked the Sheepies into thinking a bit about their received wisdom? Well then,our authorities, our Shepards, who always know what THE TRUTH is, should see to it that he never be allowed to provoke any thinking among the Sheepies. Why this sort of thing might even make some Sheepies question being sheared. So, Sheepies, pay your taxes for the war, pay the useless parasites in Washington, and don't ask questions. Baa-baa.
Baube wrote on December 25, 2007 2:01 PM:The bigger question is why Russert didn't ask Ron Paul any questions about his current platform, monetary policy, and his foreign policy?? Ron Paul's opinion on whether or not the Civil War was necessary is pretty meaningless and there is obviously a TON of confusion over the cause and justifications for the war. That is quite typical when history is being discussed, especially history far enough back with no eye witnesses, polarized accounts, no recordings etc. Why was Tim Russert bringing up statements or quotes from 1988 in the interview. Most of the quotes weren't even Ron Paul's words but someone else's. I also have to side with Ron Paul on the earmarks issue. It isn't hypocritical at all. He is elected to represent his constituents. It would arguably be immoral for him NOT to pass along the requests that his voters asked of him. The system needs to be changed, not Ron Paul.
Edwin Kennedy wrote on December 25, 2007 3:05 PM:Uh... if the North had bought all the slaves and released them, would the slave owners have known where and how to replace them?
And would the slave owners have made money in the bargain?
And would the slave owners have kept importing slaves and reselling them to the North?
Now I understand why Paul is not a contender.
Nigger wrote on December 25, 2007 4:36 PM:You people just don't know anything about history.
You just didn't listen to what Paul said.
He said, and history backs up his comments, that the British and other countries had abolished slavery in peaceful ways without resorting to violence. His suggestion was in line with how other nations had abolished slavery long before the US did.
The Civil War was about State's Rights, and a strict interpretation of the powers of the Federal Government as allowed by the Constitution.
And you dumb shit Americans just don't know shit about your own history.
Robert F. Flanagan wrote on December 25, 2007 4:59 PM:I remember going to my great-grandmothers 103 birthday party when I was a boy. At the party she told her tale from the War Between the States when she was a young girl near Tupelo, Mississippi. Her father had gone off to fight with Nathan Bedford Forrest. One afternoon she was sitting on the porch playing with her new doll. Her mother had just made a pie which was cooling on the window sill. They heard a noise--up the road came five Yankee soldiers. She and her mother ran up into the attic to hide. The soldiers began to steal everything that wasn't nailed down--the mule, wagon, cow, pigs, chickens, the pie and her doll. She said she saw them drive off in their wagon and one of the Yankees was playing with her doll. He said he would take it back to his little girl.
A few hours later her dad drove up the road with several neighbors, his mule and a wagon full of dead Yankee soldiers. He called out to his wife and daughter--aparently he had seen the Yankee playing with the doll and fearing the worst killed the entire squad.
My grandmother said she looked at the wagon load of dead Yankees and "I considered it a most satisfactory result." Her father threw the Yankees in a gully in back of the farmhosue. Nearly 90 years later my cousin and I went there and dug up Yankee uniform buttons where she said the bodies had been thrown.
The Civil War was about Yankees coming to the South and stealing. It was about power and conquest. It didn't have a damn thing to do with slavery for most of those Yankees.
Hi,
This is a response to Monte: as a liberal (of Texas origin!)I have intense admiration for Ron Paul's no BS style, and I deeply appreciate his being one of only three presidential candidates (Dennis Kucinich and Barack Obama being the other two) who had the wisdom to oppose the arrogance and folly of the Iraq War before it started. But I think him deeply wrong on the Civil War. Gradual emancipation was in fact Lincoln's goal, and he vowed to take the first essential step towards it: restricting slavery's growth. Even this modest first step was greeted with intense hosility throughout the South,and of course his mere election lecd to the immediate seccesion of 7 states. How then could gradual emancipation possibly have proceeded?? Recall the politics of the time: the Democratic Party was split due to Southerners refusing to support Stephen Douglas,desprite his years of his carrying their water in the Senate. Why? Because he said that the (white, male) voters in a new territory could vote to keep slavery out!
European examples are inoperative, since slavery was not bred into the warp and woof of society the same way as it was in the South. This is what stopped the conscience striken Southern Founding Fathers. By the 1850's, a toxic brew of racial theories of superiority, and even greater economic dependence, had made compromise impossible. There were three possibilites:
The U.S could stay united with slavery accepted as a norm
The U.S could split into parts, possibly several parts as History unwound
The U.S. could fight a fearsome war to free the slaves.
These are terrible options, but I'm quite sure that the one selected was the best.
Helter wrote on December 24, 2007 11:42 AM: "I hope Paul is a better doctor than he is a historian. Compensating slave holders was discussed very early on in the republic but was deemed impossible given the costs involved."
What do you call 600,000 dead Americans?
Simon wrote on December 25, 2007 6:16 PM:Indeed a great deal of nations ended slavery through 'compensated-emancipation'. Certainly all those countries would not allow 're-possession of slaves'. So much of the arguments here is invalid.
Freeing slaves does not really bankrupt the cotton business because cotton field owners can pay a fee and hire those released slaves. There are jobs and there are workers. Certainly things can be managed. Ron Paul was looking at the issue with peace in mind. War may not be the ultimate solution to a problem. And that's a good attitude. The cost of war is not just 600,000 lives. The malice lasted till today, obviously and probably beyond. War should have been avoided. One kind of president would opt for war. The other kind of president would opt for peace. Any body here believe that without Lincoln the Confederate would still practice slavery?
DemAC wrote on December 25, 2007 6:26 PM:Tim wrote: What do you call 600,000 dead Americans?“Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether’.” DemAC wrote on December 25, 2007 6:59 PM:
Simon wrote: War should have been avoided. One kind of president would opt for war. The other kind of president would opt for peace.So I guess Jefferson Davis won’t get your vote then. Once the Southern Confederacy started their armed rebellion for slavery there was in reality very little that the incoming US President could do but to honor his constitutional obligations and defend the country; save of course to surrender to the rebellion and watch the United States crumble and die.
Any body here believe that without Lincoln the Confederate would still practice slavery?Who can tell for sure? With the United States dead and gone and a victorious south going on a conquering spree in Central America and the Caribbean to create their “Empire for Slavery”? As it was, apartheid was the cornerstone in the former Southern Confederacy until the 1960’s. John wrote on December 25, 2007 7:05 PM:
Ron Paul's an idiot.
The problem wasn't the North unwilling to buy the slaves and set them free; it was the South unwilling to accept any future that didn't include an expansion of slavery.
Read South Carolina's declaration of the reasons for secession.
The American Civil War began with South Carolina attacking a United States military installation.
Pete Eyre wrote on December 25, 2007 7:55 PM:Fellow lovers of liberty,
Due to your interest in the message advocated by Ron Paul I wanted to make sure you were aware of the 2008 Liberty Forum (www.freestateproject.org/libertyforum), which is happening January 3-6th in Nashua, NH.
If you haven't yet heard, Dr. Paul is one of the keynote speakers for the second year in a row (check out this video to see his speech from 2007). Last year over 350 people attended. This year we're expecting even more (which is why we had to find a different venue that had greater capacity). It would be excellent if you could help us to spread the message of liberty by letting visitors to your site know about this event.
Note that for those under 18 registration fees are waived and that college students get a steep discount (they can email Chris Lawless, the coordinator for the Liberty Forum, at: dreepa@yahoo.com).
Thanks in advance. I hope to see you in NH!
In Liberty,
-Pete
"I guess that Ron Paul skipped fifth grade US history, or do they teach this stuff in the South?"
I guess fact checking is non existent here, Paul was born and went to high school in Pittsburgh...
this is how Britain ended Slavery:
Slavery Abolition ACT 1833:
"Whereas divers Persons are holden in Slavery within divers of His Majesty's Colonies, and it is just and expedient that all such Persons should be manumitted and set free, and that a reasonable Compensation should be made to the Persons hitherto entitled to the Services of such Slaves for the Loss which they will incur by being deprived of their Right to such Services"
http://www.pdavis.nl/Legis_07.htm, many other countries also compensated slave owners to end slavery
Chris Herz wrote on December 25, 2007 9:28 PM:
Two things to note here. Nathan Bedford Forrest, LTGEN CSA said of the war in his own pithy manner, "If this goddam war ain't about slavery, I'd sure as hell like to know what it is about."
Second, when in extremis, the Confederacy began to consider emancipation of slaves if they would volunteer for their army, the idea was roundly rejected in all sections of the southern elites. MAJGEN Patrick Cleburne, CSA was censured by his superiors and forced to withdraw a proposal to this effect. At the time, Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy said, "If the negro can make a good soldier our whole theory is wrong . . .".
Lastly, the attraction of slavery to the master class was not merely economic -- it was sexual, witness the large number of American Blacks who are not really very Black.
No way that Massa would abandon his privileges.
Chris Herz
Paul D. O'Brien wrote on December 25, 2007 10:30 PM: Ron Paul simply does not know what he is talking about. While slavery had been abolished in most European countries by 1860, the Southern leadership considered the slave system the perfect society and wanted to extend slavery to new areas. The major issue was whether slavery would be permitted in the territories. Mexico, of course, had already abolished slavery. So in the territory gained from Mexico in the Mexican War, the South wanted to authorize slavery where it had been previously illegal. The position of Calhoun and others since 1830 was Congress did not have the power to forbid slavery in any territory. He argued that a southern slaveowner had an
absolute right to take his slaves to any territory possessed by the Union. As 1860 approached the leadership of the South wanted to reinstitue the importation of slaves from Africa. Paul also does not seem to realize it was the South that attempted to secede from the Union. If the Civil War had not occurred slavery would have existed in North America into the twentieth century.
I'm black, and I could care less about what he thinks about the civil war. I may disagree with him on issues but he's the only one fighting for my right to disagree. Thing is, I agree with him, why is it that we are the only country that had a civil war over this issue? I am much more worried about the fact that obama, hilary giuliani etc are all cfr members, and paul is one of the few that isn't. Ron paul would have saved lives back then, and he is trying to save lives now. I dont care if he believes in god. I dont care if he thinks its wrong to rip out eight month old fetuses. I care about national id, cards and the amero, and a return to slavery for the working class right now.
Doc W wrote on December 26, 2007 12:13 AM:From what Ive read over the years, Lincoln did not apparently care much about eliminating slavery. As is well known, the emancipation proclamation came halfway through the war--as a war measure, in the hope that slaves would rebel against the plantation owners. Lincoln embodied the North's economic hegemony over the South, specifically in the form of high tariffs that worked against the agrarian South and for the manufacturing North. The issue of slavery in new states had mainly to do with the balance of power in the US Senate, where if the North gained a majority (already having one in the House) it would have complete control in the federal government.
Lincoln pursued his war against the South to the tune of 600,000 deaths. Proportionally to the population, that's like 6 million killed today, i.e. 2000 9/11s. Sherman cut a 20-mile-wide swath of utter destruction of civilian property in his notorious march to the sea. Lincoln also trampled the Constitution, violating civil liberties of those who opposed his policies, and paved the way for more of the same by future politicians. Surely there had to be a better way.
Win or lose, Paul's candidacy is getting people to take a closer look at some of the propaganda foisted on us in the government schools. That's healthy.
doug lominac wrote on December 26, 2007 1:24 AM:Ron Paul's point is the War of Northern Aggression, similar to many other wars (Iraq I&II, Vietnam, Spanish-American War, WWI, possibly WWII) are unnecessary. The wars are a pretext for US government control and tyranny. Look at 9-11, the US reacted very badly both economically and militarily. We should have been conservative, attacked only those directly responsible and kept expenditures down. The islamofascists have to be dealt with mostly by police forces from participating nations since they move in very small groups. Armies are not equipped to deal with that although Bush tried by inviting one and all to Iraq to do battle. All this did was create more of them.
Regarding the Civil War, the main problem was the South and the North had entirely different trade policies. The South needed to export her products but the North wanted protectionist policies for her manufactured goods. This continually damamged the Southern economy. It would have been better if the two regions had split into two different countries. Slavery would have ended within a generation anyway. The CSA had a constitution identical to the North except the line item veto was included to help the president contain expenditures. 600,000 men killed, which would have produced untold millions of American descendants. We will never recover from that disastrous war.
butcherofballyhoo wrote on December 26, 2007 1:42 AM:Teflon Ron! They are drudging up the most antagonistic drivel to try and discredit him and nothing works. People ask yourself why cornering Ron Paul on his opinion of antebellum solutions to slavery has anything to do with what is going on in the world right now?
Sure, it's fun to talk counter-factual history with Ron..."if we only would have done this or done that" but that kind of stuff is clearly a shoddy attempt to paint Ron as a racist. Why would they do this? Because Ron Paul is the biggest threat to the establishment since Kennedy's attempt to bypass the Federal Reserve and smash the C.I.A.
If you consider yourself even slightly informed, please educate yourself on the CFR, the trilateral commission, and the roundtable groups that have hijacked this country long ago. Ron Paul is the only one challenging this menacing "power behind the throne."
Every front runner is a CFR member, including dollface Obama, whose wife Michelle is the vice-president of the Chicago chapter. Also please go to Obama's website and look under the Iraq war section to find Zbignew Bryzinski's endorsement of Obama. Then please skip out on just one episode of Dancing with the Stars and DO SOME RESEARCH!
Everyone is trying to be an armchair historian on this thread so act like historians and do some digging. You will find that Bryzinski actually helped start the trilateral commission with his mentor David Rockefeller. Whether or not you agree with the tenents of the CFR or the TC (namely its ultra globalist and socialist tendencies) please cobble together those last few remaining brain cells to recognize that some of the biggest establishment figures in modern US history are backing Obama. You may think that this is a beneficial discovery, I don't know. If so, fine. But if you think Obama is going to change the status quo, please be intellectually honest enough to admit that this is a grand illusion of Copperfieldian heights that you are deluding yourself with.
Ron Paul crashes the party and wipes away the chess pieces. Get excited!
Tendrin wrote on December 26, 2007 1:45 AM:Compensated Emancipation would've been nice -- in theory. Other countries did it, so why didn't we? Here's some very simple reasons as to -why- we could not pursue a course of Compensated Emancipation.
South Carolina announced its secession from the Union on December 24th, 1860. This is, guess what, -before Lincoln even took office-. So what exactly was the guy supposed to do? He had already signalled that he was rejecting the Crittendon Comrpromise which, though I am not hugely familiar with, was said to've offered heavy concessions to the South. But he hadn't even -taken office yet- when several states announced their secession. The Republicans were an abolitionist party and while Lincoln said that he had no interest in taking steps to abolish slavery out right, it was clear that the man believed that it was inevitable that the 'Peculiar Practice' was going to have to be done away with.
Perhaps emancipation as Doctor Paul would've liked to've seen would've been possible -- but it wasn't at the hands of the -North- that the Civil War broke out. So, yeah. I suppose we didn't -have- to fight the Civil War.
Also, anyone who says that the war wasn't about slavery hasn't paid enough attention. It was. The Southern Way of Life was rooted in the use of slavery. It's hard to imagine having a way of life based on the outright subjugation of human beings, but many of these people simply saw it as God's will that slavery existed and that God would choose to end it when he wanted. That was the theory that Lee and many other members of the Southern Gentry subscribed to. The way of life they were fighting to defend and the 'states rights' they viewed as being potentially violated were about slavery -- and they were desperately afraid that the dominance the South had experienced for decades would end with the election of Lincoln.
Lincoln's only goal became the preservation of the Union -- and when he was left no choice but to engage in a conflict of arms through the South's own actions, he did so. There's a reason that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't happen until -well- into the war.
alvi wrote on December 26, 2007 12:08 PM:Tendrin,pull your head out: the slavery issue was the weakest rationale for the civil war not unlike the WMD excuse for invading Iraq. It was but one of a long list of provocations used by those controlling the North to incite war. The North was going to war regardless of any Southern appeasement. Fort Sumter enjoys the company of the Alamo, the USS Maine, Pearl Harbor and the WTC towers in the conspiratorial toolbox of the greedmongers. By fanning the flames of the slavery issue through yellow journalism and agents provocateurs, abolition was positioned as the banner to rally the sheeple to the bloodbath. There's very little question that those poor misinformed bastards who left their souls at Gettysburg were fighting over slavery but those of us who take time to investigate concocted history know better. Turn away from the propaganda being packaged for you, historical or current, Liberal or Neocon, by mass media outlets and do a little digging. Why don't you start with South Carolina's declaration of succession then learn to whistle Dixie.
In hindsight one can only agree that the American Civil War (as it is called vernacularly) was necessary to set a tragic precedent for making our Union compulsory.
C'mon you nuts...
Ron Paul is not trying to teach you history... What he is saying is with our knowledge of what happened, would an economic settlement have worked better for all concerned?
And the answer is quite obvious. Unless of course you are the Rambo type.
al wrote on December 26, 2007 12:51 PM:Thanks Ron,
Up to this point I thought you were a nut. Thanks for removing any doubt I had.
Steve Barg wrote on December 26, 2007 1:25 PM:How about a calm reasonable discussion. I've had the same thought about the civil war for some time now, and I don't consider myself a loon. Why does everyone seem to take it as gospel that the federal government had to stop states from seceding. I hate the idea of slavery as much as the next person, but why compromise on the issue for decades and then fight a civil war to keep the union together. And then let Jim Crow rule the day for another century anyway? If a state wants to be their own nation, let them. When Quebec votes to leave Canada no one threatens war. If the vote ever went the other way and they left, it would have been a stupid idea in my opinion, but it's not worth killing over. And if you think that slavery made killing necessary, should we all of been a nation of John Browns? Ron Paul has plenty of radical ideas, but I think he at least deserves a civil discussion about them.
A New Libertarian wrote on December 26, 2007 1:29 PM:You know where I see a glaring difference in the candidates ?
When Hillary talks ... she discusses how "she learned to stand up to evil" , because of the "men in her life . "
When Romney talks .... he discusses how he didn't know illegals were cutting his lawn .
When Obama talks .... he discusses Hillary .
When Gulliani talks .... he discusses how we need to me "more agressive(?)in the Middle East , and teach our soliders how to "nation build" .
When Edwards talks ... he discusses why he's against the war , after he was for the war .
When Huckabee talks ... he discusses why he doesn't see anything wrong with a windowpane .
When Ron Paul talks ... he involves the Nation is spirited debate about real issues .... he inspires us to study this Nation's history .... he fans the flames of patriotism ( the real kind ) .
He makes us proud to be Americans .
I have completely fallen in love with his message .... so has my wife , my brother , his wife ..... and recently my daughter and new son-in-law has asked about speeches and positions of Dr Paul . They have never voted before , and have always felt estranged by the voting process .
There is something special about Ron Paul's message .
willyjsimmons wrote on December 26, 2007 1:55 PM:'Why does everyone seem to take it as gospel that the federal government had to stop states from seceding.'
You know...because...an act of treason had been committed? Maybe?
'but why compromise on the issue for decades and then fight a civil war to keep the union together.'
See above and...southern states wanted to expand slavery westward?
'And then let Jim Crow rule the day for another century anyway?'
Uh...not even gonna touch that. LOL
'If a state wants to be their own nation, let them.'
If that was truly the argument... certainly one could discuss it. But as you say, it would be 'dumb' to do.
FYI, there is STILL a strong secession movement in parts of South Carolina.
'Ron Paul has plenty of radical ideas, but I think he at least deserves a civil discussion about them.'
And that is exactly what's occurring, no?
'There is something special about Ron Paul's message .'
'Special Eduction' maybe. Nice way of me saying the dude is retarded. But I don't call names, so I'm just sayin. LOL
Amen, A NEW LIBERTARIAN, ! I am a confederate civil war reenactor and I think Ron Paul is the best choice for president now- He's the only person who's obviously looked deeper into the issues than most others have.
The war was about taxes- if you look, lincoln (tyrant) wanted to increase the tariff on the south's cotton by 40%. The south already paid over half of the taxes to the North. The south said No, the most we'll agree to pay is a 10% increase. So what does lincoln do? He blockades the south, cutting their trade off with the rest of the world. So- we fired on fort sumter and hence they get SLAVERY out of that? JUST because our main export was cotton? Come on! Read it YOURSELF if you want to be so smart, don't just base your opinions, beliefs, and brains off of what your teacher told you in grade school.
Ashley wrote on December 26, 2007 2:17 PM:This would be pretty funny if not so sad, because all these years later, Paul has managed to get a bunch of crackpot right wing racist republicans and fake right wing crackpots who call themselves libertarians, but are effectively the same thing, to refight the Civil War while all the time working to benefit the ultimate beneficiaries of the civil war, corporations. Time to reject all of it and work to help each other and the people of this country before we become the new third world.
Pete wrote on December 26, 2007 2:35 PM:Hmmm, lets see here,
Cotton Farmer, "What ya doin on my property, get off"
Northerner, "I'm here to buy all of your slaves, for top dollar".
Farmer, "They ain't fer sale, wanna see my gun? Here it is, ain't it a beauty, not get the hell off a my land before I fill your ass with lead..."
A New Libertarian wrote on December 26, 2007 3:00 PM:In reply to Ashley :
"crackpot" ? "racists" ?
Aren't these the debating points on the level of kindergarden ?
Who are you to call me fake ? Re-evaulte yourself .
First of all "racist" is a concept I do not recognize . I don't believe in "race . America is a melting pot .... we are all American . Our rights under the Constitution come as unalieanable rights as INDIVIUALS .... not because we belong to particular club ,race , sex , religion .... etc.
So keep the race card in your pocket okay ? America is tired of "special interests" .
Business is not a dirty word ... neither is profit .
What's completely un-Constitutional is the People's money given to subsidize huge companies like Haliburton . This is the evil . Among record profit years ... the government gives our money away for subsidies , sweetheart deals , protection , and monopoly .
Subsidies is something Ron Paul has fought against his whole life ... both foreign and domestic .
Capitilism has it's faults ... but at the end of the day , I was born and raised as an American ... and the alternative be it Communism or Socialism is unacceptable to me .
Freedom and creativity goes into the dark ages in such a senario . Britain now wants to charge special taxes for those who continue to eat red meats ... Australia now wants to put a "carbon tax" on families with more than 1 child . China crrently has a one child policy .
I don't want government telling me how I will live my life ... for the rest of my life .
The quickest road to a 3rd World , is the track we are on . We presently give 4 months of salary to the government for agendas we have nothing to do with . We currently owe a 9 trillion dollar debt ... this represents 80% of the entire World's savings ! Under a Socialist construct , it would even be worse . We would be relinquishing 6 months of salary ... if not more .
Ron Paul is the only candidate talkng truth to power in terms of fiscal responsibility .
Mike L wrote on December 26, 2007 6:10 PM:Do a little research before jumping to conclusions. First, Ron Paul wasn't educated in Texas, he was raised in Pittsburgh, PA. I guess that means you don't like their schools either. As for his statements about Lincoln and the Civil War, why don't you take the time to educate yourselves before you have read it in the proper context. I know peaceful solutions aren't very popular these days. Any mention of peace and you risk getting tased into submission. Anyway, the portion of the Meet the Press interview where this question was asked is below.
MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."
REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..
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.
Grant wrote on December 26, 2007 6:20 PM:Well, well, well… I’ve never seen such a display of Ron Paul nuts around here before. Quite a show they’ve put on too.
Too bad their candidate is a looney.
Anonymous wrote on December 26, 2007 6:56 PM:Sorry to disturb your Five Minute Hate session, but I just wanted to ask a question of the statist sheep here that are so willing to give up their liberty so that their beloved nanny state can control their lives from cradle to grave. I ask you this. Who's the slave now, huh? Think about it. Is a little security worth your freedom. I for one refuse to be a slave to anyone or any government. The rest of you sheep can baa-baa your ignorant little lives away for all I care. I'm voting for Dr. Paul because he's the only one not in the pockets of the corporations. I don't give one sh*t what his views on the Civil War, religion, etc. are. I don't care if he thinks the flying spaghetti monster should have been called in to stop the Civil War, free the slaves and turn the south into a pasta utopia. I only care that he has a genuine desire to restore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and shrink this totalitarian monster that we call the Federal Government. Get the federal monkey off your back. Vote for Ron Paul in 2008!
John Foster wrote on December 26, 2007 7:13 PM:If 5,000 Americans dying in Iraq is bad then how is
600,000 Americans dying in the "Civil War/War of Northern Aggression/ War for Southern Independence" (whatever you want to call it) any better
Dr. Paul's argument is that war is not always or even usually the best answer.
Not now, not 200 years ago, never!
War should be a last resort.
David wrote on December 26, 2007 9:53 PM:The Civil War was Lincoln's desire to keep the South in the Union. If the South had been allowed to leave peacefully there would have been no war. Yeah! I know they fired on FT. Sumpter, but that was provoked and used as Lincoln's excuse, or cause belli. When you want a war provoke an incident.
Lincoln didn't give a hoot about the slaves, except for his racism. At best he wanted them deported. During the war he declared them free only in areas controlled by the Confederacy in hopes of starting an uprising, allowing non-Confederate states and terrirories to keep their slaves.
All Lincoln accomplished from all of this was lasting hatred of Blacks in the South from the War's defeat.
Allan Draycott wrote on December 31, 2007 5:19 PM:Lincoln was always quite clear that the purpose of the war, from his point of view, was the preservation, or restoration, of the Union. Slavery had been the issue on which the Union had been broken and he would only tamper with slavery insofar as it could restore the Union.
In a famous letter written on 22 August 1862, before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, to the journalist Horace Greely who had criticised him in the press for not abolishing slavery Lincoln wrote the following:
"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause..."
The primary object of his Emancipation Proclamation was to prevent Britain and France, their trade with the South interrupted by the Union blockade, joining the war on the side of the Confederacy in the same way that France, Holland and Spain had joined the war on the side of the rebel colonists against Britain eight and a half decades earlier.
The British and French navies were then heavily engaged in suppressing the Atlantic slave trade and whilst a war in support of a nation seeking its independence might have been justifiable to public opinion in those countries a war in defence of slavery most definitely would not.
Also Dr Paul misses the point that Britain and France abolished slavery in their colonial territories (although Napoleon temporarily restored it). Slavery had been forbidden in their homelands since the early Middle Ages. The Confederacy was not a colony of the United States.
A nearer analogy might be with the abolition of serfdom (the word "serf" is derived from the Latin word "servus" meaning "a slave") in Russia by Tsar Alexander II in 1861. Although the freed serfs were given land they had to pay for it through a lifetime tax which was in turn paid to the landlords as compensation for the land (and serfs) they had lost.
Something on these lines might have been tried in the US but the results of the Russian experiment were not encouraging as the freed serfs rather like the later US sharecroppers thought they had gotten a raw deal and it tended to increase instability rather than reduce it.
There were compromises made prior to the Civil War over the issue of slavery,usually brokered by Henry Clay, most notably the Missouri Compromise of 1820 establishing the Mason-Dixon line and the Millard Fillmore Compromise of 1850. However these compromises contained within themselves the seeds of future conflict as they made ambiguous the question as to whether slavery was an issue for individual states to decide or a matter for the federal government.
The real issue over which the Civil WAr was fought was not slavery but the primacy of the federal government and its right to override popularly-approved decisions of the individual states in the wider interest. This issue had not been satisfactorily resolved at the Constitutional Convention and regarding issues such as abortion and gay marriage is still argued over today.
The Civil War, horrific catastrophe though it was, had at least one benefit. When subsequent issues divided the United States geographically such as the Gold Standard in the 1880s & 1890s, Prohibition in the 1920s & 1930s and civil rights in the 1950s & 1960s, they were ultimately resolved through the ballot box rather than by further resort to secession and war. It seems that having had one civil war in their history the American people, in the words of William Tecumseh Sherman,
"have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience."
Texicana wrote on January 14, 2008 12:15 AM:Nickie boy,
Regarding your comment in December: Before pushing us out the door, you might want to look at what we furnish the rest of the nation. Thirty percent of the beef in the nation comes from Texas, but you're probably a vegetarian. We've got those too. As a matter of fact, we produce more spinach than any other state. Ditto for cattle, cotton, sheep, goats, mohair,wool, and hay (to feed all those cattle). Our major exports are chemicals, technology, and energy. My question is: Is secession still illegal? If not, I want out. I don't think we need you guys.
Texan and proud of it.
trent wrote on January 25, 2008 9:08 AM:im always in favour of a good old invation, but this sounds like it would had been a clever compromise ,the only problem is you can never ever make more profit without slavery, the money that would have had to been agreed on, would have had to make greedy rich types more richer.
i think that its the rich that profited from slavery that were the problem.
