Skip to comments.Ron Paul is wrong on the Civil War and slavery, and he should be ashamed
Posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
[by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine, CA), re-published with his permission]
For years I have admired Congressman Ron Pauls principled stance on spending and the Constitution. That said, he really damaged himself when he blamed President Lincoln for the Civil War, saying, Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.
This is historical revisionism of the worst order, and it must be addressed.
For Congressman Pauls benefit and for his supporters who may not know seven states illegally declared their independence from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President. After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
Ron Paul’s got some loose screws rattling around in there somewhere.
Well, that only works if you WIN. If you win it becomes legal. When you lose it was always illegal.
The difference between a rebellion and a revolution is success! Success makes all the difference in the world.
Hannibal’s brother ALSO crossed the Alps with elephants, even more of them! But while Hannibal kicked buttocks in Italy for sixteen years, his brother was defeated and killed. We all know Hannibal’s name, who the hell was his brother? ;)
The USC is silent on the issue of secession. It would not have been ratified had that provision been in the original USC in 1787.
The US Senate tried to make secession illegal by legislation, which was voted down, I think this was 1860.
Maybe the outcome will be different the next time...
That would seem to make it fall under the 10th Amendment.
The victor writes the history books.
While I don’t have as extreme a view as Mr. Paul, I do think Lincoln mishandled the entire situation and his own actions contributed to the events leading up to the war.
Think of it this way: what other major country had a deadly civil war when they abolished slavery? The vast majority of countries found political ways to end slavery without massive bloodshed. This is something Lincoln failed to do. Sure, once the shooting started it was too late, but there seem to me to have been a lot of mistakes earlier that hardened everyone’s positions and lead to the conflict. Maybe it was inevitable, maybe not. We’ll never know for sure. But I don’t think analyzing this question should be beyond the range of discourse.
An interesting question, which nobody asks because it is basically radioactive in today’s environment, is: What if some compromise could have been reached that would have ended slavery without bloodshed, say, ten years later, around 1875. Some kind of phase-out period coupled with economic aid to the south to help them transition away from slave labor perhaps? Would that have been better than killing hundreds of thousands of people? Or would the moral thing to do still have been to immediately end slavery and doom hundreds of thousands of people to grisly deaths and many more to horrible injuries, followed by a hundred years of strife?
This is total BS. No state would have ever joined the union if they thought they could not secede if the Federal gubmint became too overbearing. It had been less than 100 years since the Revolutionary war and gubmint oppression was fresh on everyone's minds. States do indeed have the power and the right to secede. State Legislatures had to approve entry into the union and State Legislatures can decide to pull out if the people of that state deem it necessary to do so. It was the Feds who said no to this and that is what sparked the war. It's been a downhill slide in terms of a massively overreaching Federal gubmint every since.....
I didn’t realize Ron Paul was this ignorant. Is that quote accurate? Out of context?
The federal government did not engage in massive aid programs involving cash then. They didn't have the money for it. Remember that the income tax was still in the distant future.
I added the "involving cash" because they did provide lots of largess to fund the railroads but that was done by giving away land.
Cant people just disagree sometimes? Why are people always looking to create a devil as opposed to simply disagreeing on a historical event?
“For Congressman Pauls benefit and for his supporters who may not know seven states illegally declared their independence from the United States”
Sounds like 13 Colonies I heard of once. They did it “illegally” once too.
Ron Paul acolytes include ADAM KOKESH the anti-war protestor
that says enough...
Hostilities began 4 months before Lincoln was sworn in.
Are you speaking of his actions as a one-term member member of the House from 1846-48?
Actually, today is the anniversary of the first income tax implementation in 1861 by the Lincoln Administration and Congress.
“What is a government for if it is not there to protect the natural God given rights of it’s people?”
Like the God given right of self rule? A government “by the people, for the people”?
You might wanna re-think your position because your entire post contradicts the last sentence.
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.