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.
To many liberals jump onto a word or phrase out of context and run with it against you. And they always couch it in some smarmy “I have always admired you but ....” as DeVore does this here.
Rand Paul has a THEORETICAL discussion, and the libs go crazy as if it they never heard of the “devil’s advocate” concept.
Imagine if, instead of slavery, the civial war was about the southern states rebelling against the US governement doing something like, oh, I dont know... Forcing you to buy health insurance.
The southern states were trying to secede from the union like they were promised they could do if the union wasn’t working out for them
The issue just happened to be slavery. (Now watch - some dumbass lib will go “SEE HE LIKES SLAVERY~!!!!)
If secession was illegal would it surprise if the US Senate voted on legislation making it illegal? Why would they vote on something that was already codified?
Original source: US Senate records: Look at the vote on Article 8 Yeas 18 nays 28, VOTED DOWN!
Yes, he really said it.
Paul problem with Lincoln is his idea of union thru force. If states want to leave, let them. Its their life, their state and they should be allowed to leave as they so please. Just as America left the British Empire
It would certainly have been better, but it wasn't going to happen. The intransigence of the South over the issue of slavery outweighed every other consideration at the time. It wasn't even a question of outlawing slavery, but of simply whether it would be allowed to expand. And the excesses of the Southern states, even against their own citizenry, were such as to indicate that they were not about to give it up without a struggle.
Slavery ended in Europe without bloodshed, but Abe has been martyred and canonized by socialist academia for his “holy crusade”. Lincoln enacted the first ever income tax to pay for his horrible, bloody, senseless war on the South.
Later, Woodrow Wilson made the income tax “progressive”, to prepare the U.S. for entering World War I in Europe, which accomplished absolutely nothing, other than insuring a second European war two decades later.
Yes, historians love both Lincoln and Wilson. Apparently, the more blood you have on your hands, the higher your presidential rating.
By the way, is it any wonder that Obama loves Lincoln more than any of his other predecessors ?
“Hostilities began 4 months before Lincoln was sworn in.”
And just what were those hostilities? South Carolina seceding in December, 1860 was not a hostility.
I have it on the authority of several FReepers that Ron Paul cannot be wrong and is in fact The Lord God.
(GoldStandard this means you and I hope you take note when you see this using that other screen name you now hide behind)
Is there any reason you can't post the entire article here?
Didn't see this blog site on the Updated FR Excerpt and Link Only or Deny Posting List due to Copyright Complaints
From the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union;
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual...
Good point for this one, as it is Chuck Devore’s article, not mine. Admin, if possible, please post Chuck’s entire article. Cheers,
All powers not granted ...
Actually your question is backwards - where was the federal government given the right to force a state to remain? The states were soveriegn and had only given those sovereign powers to the national government as were deemed necessary for the good of all states. There is no clause which disallows a state from removing itself from the compact, nor any provision granting the federal government the power to compell a member to remain ...
oh, man, this thread is going to get NASTY. Some heads gonna be EXPLODING here real soon! Popcorn?
1/3 of the states joined the Union during or after the Civil War, when it was pretty clear secession wouldn't fly.
Good point. As Lincoln explained, “more perfect” meant “stronger.”
The Articles of Confederation were determind to be unworkable, and were replaced by the Constitution, which became the supreme law of the land. As far as I know, the Constitution does not anywhere use the term “Perpetual Union”.
Precisely. A state being "held prisoner by the Federal gubmint" sounds a lot like Obamacare, doesn't it? It also sounds a lot like the strangle hold the Department of (re)Education has on gubmint skools, the Department of Energy has on the drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the Federally induced water shortages in the Central Valley of California, and the list goes on and on and on.....
>seven states illegally declared their independence from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President.
US COnstitution, Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Given that the power of succession [withdrawing from the agreement of the Constitution, ‘independence’] is not given to the United States by the Constitution it stands to reason that such powers are either the State’s or the People’s; therefore I cannot in good conscience agree with terming their declaration of independence from the federal government as ‘illegal.’
>After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...
Let’s look at the history & facts here:
1 — SC declared its independence on 20 Dec 1860
2 — The ‘first shot’ was fired at approx. 0430 on 12 Apr 1861
3 — Prior to this ‘first shot’ repeated requests/demands for the evacuation of Fort Sumter were made by SC
Given that SC was/is supposed to be a sovereign state and there were foreign troops were occupying a portion of SC, was SC justified in using force to remove them?
“1/3 of the states joined the Union during or after the Civil War, when it was pretty clear secession wouldn’t fly.”
Well, secession may not have been, or may not be successful, but the right to secede was not precluded.
Government does not give rights, they are inherent within man and his relationships and come from God. Your premise is flawed.
So what? We're talking about events before the War of Northern Aggression. What happened afterward has no bearing on the concept of secession prior to TWONA....
- Uh, yes it IS!
Any power not granted to the federal government WAS NOT GRANTED!
All of these things (yes even welfare) are talked about by the founding fathers.
Welfare of whom?
It is not a catch all for everything under the sun, it is a catch all for everything under the sun that is not assigned by the Constitution as a power of the new federal government.
A supposed constitutional right for a state to secede did not occur to people until the 1820s. It never even came up during the convention or ratification.