Skip to comments.Ron Paul says Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War. Do you agree?
Posted on 12/26/2007 9:26:27 PM PST by stainlessbanner
Ron Paul appeared on "Meet the Press" over the weekend, and gave voice to a sentiment scarcely heard in American politics. He claimed that the Civil War was unnecessary, and that Lincoln "never should have gone to war" to stop slavery. A better approach would have been for the federal government to simply purchase freedom for all of the slaves in the country. Watch Ron Paul on Meet the Press [YouTube]:
Of course, such a program sounds more than a little strange coming from a man who is so mistrustful of government that he wants to abolish the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Reserve, and the IRS. But what about the contention that Lincoln went to war to put an end to slavery?
YES - 29% (states incl: AL, LA, AR, MS, SC, ND, SD, WY)
NO - 62%
Not sure - 9%
...doesn’t Ron Paul have a space ship to catch ?.......is anyone listening to him ?
ron paul is a moron.
I want to abolish the Department of Education too. There was never any demonstration of need for it, unless you consider Jimmy Carter’s desire to pay back the teachers unions a legitimate “need.”
Yeck, been to AOL twice today. Stupid and inaccurate poll.
Pandering to the South Carolina and Mississippi voters, it appears.
I tend to agree that Lincoln was dead wrong in fighting the WBTS... no matter his trumped-up excuses...
Well that ruins any hope he had of receiving endorsements from Jesses Jackson and Al Sharpton. :)
War should have never been fought. Sanctions should have been given a chance...some resolutions too.
I’ve held the position that Lincoln was wrong for 45 years - long before Ron Paul. I’ve always supported states rights though and the Constitution.
Lincoln originally fought to preserve the Union. Originally, the slaves were not to be liberated. Someone doesn’t know their history.
Ron Paul is dead wrong about that. The Civil War wasn't about freeing the slaves -- it was about keeping the Union together. And the South started the war by firing on Fort Sumter
About halfway through the Civil War -- Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address which called for the end to slavery...
But the civil war was also about an issue just as big which was not avoidable, and that was the question of whether the US was going to be able to industrialize (which required tarrifs) or whether we were going to allow England to dump manufactured goods here and essentially continue using us as a colony.
So saying Lincoln was wrong for starting the Civil War to free the slaves is ignorant of history.
A real poll would be much redder. (At least in the South).
Thanks for the ping. I voted earlier off of a link from SHN&V. Oh, what the Hell. Might as well vote again. LOL!
I agree with Paul on this 100%!
he wants to abolish the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Reserve, and the IRS.
Well, I don’t know about the war but I have to agree with him on the above.
I think a real poll would be much more in favor of Lincoln even in the South. People that believe that Lincoln was right in suppressing the attempted political power grab by the slaveowning class accept that belief as mere recognized historical common sense and will not be motivated to multiple votes or even one vote. On the other hand, the partisans of the Confederate cause will jump at the chance to join Paul and reverse the verdict of history.
It’s all the snowbirds and halfbacks that “Blue” the poll questions in the Carolinas.
Halfback - Northeast person who moves to Florida, finds out they don’t like it and then moves halfway back to the Carolinas.
....”About halfway through the Civil War — Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address which called for the end to slavery...”
.........I always thought he freed them after Antietam....that was in early fall of ‘62....Gettysburg was fought in July ‘63
I doubled checked with my Civil War book and you are correct sir! (sorta)
Five days after the battle, Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation -- September 22, 1862 and the second one was issued in January 1, 1863. But these were just Presidential orders NOT laws passed by Congress.
All slaves were officially freed with the ratification of the 13th Amendment on December 18, 1865.
These dates proves that the Union did not go into the Civil War to free the slaves like Ron Paul claims but were implemented as a punishment to the South for daring to succeed.
I was incorrect too. The Gettysburg Address was just a famous speech that invoked human equality.
The poll results don’t say how many people voted... do you have that information?
OMG- 26 posts and that idiot N-S has not even weighed in.
Lincoln was wrong. But I don’t need a tin-foil hat wacko like Ron Paul, to tell me what I have advocated for years.... :)
The South SECEDED....if it had SUCCEEDED, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.....:)
Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth....:)
A better approach would have been for the federal government to simply purchase freedom for all of the slaves in the country.
The result of the conflict was to virtually eliminate state autonomy and unConstitutionally empower the federal goobermint at their (and our) expense. Therefore it was a bad thing. At least we got the end of slavery out of it as a consolation prize, though some feel it would have ended soon anyway.
To free the slaves or favoring Federal rights over state rights? You're not very clear here...
“A better approach would have been for the federal government to simply purchase freedom for all of the slaves in the country. Watch Ron Paul on Meet the Press [YouTube]:”
That could have worked in 1780, but after Lincoln was president...the south wanted nothing to do with Lincoln.
The war had more to do with long-term interests. The south wanted to retain political powers, and the north wanted to restrain them via slavery representation. The split in cultures and politics ensued, and stubborn minds collided.
That’s it. Ron’s sense of history is weak.
That information was not provided at the AOL site.
To coerce the Southern States by use of warfare to remain in a Union, they chose to leave, trampling on the Sovereign rights of those states in the process.....
Two points. The Southern states fired the first shot at Fort Sumter. There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for any state to leave the Union whenever they feel like it.
The South had good REASON to fire on Ft. Sumter.
There is nothing in the Constitution to PROHIBIT any state from leaving the Union whenever they wanted to.
(and STILL isn’t!)
Except these little pesky sections here:
NO State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
After the original constitution, (the failed "Articles of Confederation") caused Shays Rebellion by allowing states to do whatever they wanted regardless of federal laws, the founding fathers adopted the Constitution making IT the Surpreme Law of the land, to ensure the union remained paramount (and STILL is!)
Every President from Zachary Taylor, to Andy Jackson, to Abraham Lincoln, has clearly stated that secession WITHOUT consent of Congress is illegal, and the Supreme Court has ruled so as well.
Hate to bust your bubble, Billy, but the states had ALREADY SECEDED when they entered into a “confederation”....so those sections don’t apply, AND you still haven’t shown me where the Constitution prohibits secession.
There is nothing in the Constitution to PROHIBIT any state from leaving the Union whenever they wanted to.
(and STILL isnt!)
No they didn't. They objected to a "foreign post" in their illegal country.
What are you 12? Just because you don't like the government doesn't mean you can up and create your own country. If you do, expect a bloody fight.
Even Gandhi (one of the most peaceful and pacifist man in history) couldn't deal with the riots and hatred and split up Pakistan and India. And both of these countries are STILL not happy about that.
What the heck, we might as well give Louis Farrakhan his own country within America because the "black people" feel the system is letting them down... You do see my point right?
The decision to leave the Union was made by the people of the respective states. In Texas, for example, the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of secession. Do you deny the right of the electorate to decide their own fate? That is one of the basic rights of all men!
By the way, the decision to fire on Ft. Sumter wasn’t made until Lincoln decided to resupply with food and weapons!
A country formed by the will of the electorate isn’t “illegal”.....
I give up. Ping?
Ron Paul is right about almost everything he says- as long as it has NOTHING to do with foreign policy.
Funny you should say that- one could argue that's exactly what Lincoln did.
Ron Paul Is a Geroge Soros plant from the left wing wacko group moveon, he is not our candidate.
You'd have to show by research, I think, that the Republicans had a coherent industrial policy in mind, one, and that, secondly, they made medicine to precipitate a constitutional crisis -- and win it politically or militarily -- which would allow them to recast the federal Union in such a way as to empower the federal government to impose that policy over the objections of the Southern States.
Which is what happened, so it isn't hard to argue that some farsighted Republican(s) might have entertained a long view even before the war, that anticipated much of what followed.
Which, if shown, would damn them as war criminals.
So let's have a world empire on principle, because it's good for us, and to hell with anyone who wants an independent country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.