Ron Paul is wrong on the Civil War and slavery, and he should be ashamed

Grand Old Partisan ^ | August 5, 2010 | Chuck Devore

[Michael Zak]

[by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine, CA), re-published with his permission]

For years I have admired Congressman Ron Paul’s 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 Paul’s 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...

[Mr. K]

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~!!!!)

[central_va]

All the southern states signed onto it. Where in this legal document called the constitution was any state given the right to secede?

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!

[ought-six]

The right to secede was understood by the Founders. Indeed, the Constitution would not have been ratified if secession were precluded. Absent a right to secede, a state could be held a virtual prisoner by the federal government and/or other states, subject to the whim of whatever agenda floats the boat of that government or those states. No state would have ratified the Constitution under those circumstances, and no state would seek membership into a confederacy that had the power to imprison that state or hold it hostage. For an analogy, consider the compact of marriage. Is divorce an ultimate option? Of course it is. A state has the same option should circumstances get to the point where differences become irreconcilable, or basic safety and security is at risk.

[Michael Zak]

Yes, he really said it.

[4rcane]

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

[Mr Ramsbotham]

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?

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.

[colonel mosby]

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 ?

[ought-six]

“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.

[Artemis Webb]

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)

[stainlessbanner]

Please file in bloggers/personal

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

[Cheburashka]

That would seem to make it fall under the 10th Amendment.

---

It would not seem. What don't you understand about the term “Perpetual Union”?

From the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union;

Article XIII.

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...

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/artconf.shtml

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"That would seem to make it fall under the 10th Amendment."

The 10th amendment says that any power not given to the federal government is reserved for the states and the state's people. This is not a catch all for everything under the sun. Whenever the word "power" is used in the Constitution it refers to something that the people delegate to a government as a function to perform on their behalf. Examples of this would be schools, welfare programs, military etc... All of these things (yes even welfare) are talked about by the founding fathers. If the states want to have a massive welfare program to feed the poor, that is up to each individual state.

However, nowhere does any founding father talk about the power of the state to secede from this new thing they wanted to form called the United States. Can you point to something where a founding father talked about the states power to secede in the future from the United States? I can give you an example of the opposite. After the war of 1812 the New England states talked of seceeding at the Hartford Convention. Madison (you know that guy who wrote the Constitution) was President at the time, was against this and would not have allowed them to secede.

[Michael Zak]

Good point for this one, as it is Chuck Devore’s article, not mine. Admin, if possible, please post Chuck’s entire article. Cheers,

[An.American.Expatriate]

Where in this legal document called the constitution was any state given the right to secede?

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 ...

[ConservativeDude]

oh, man, this thread is going to get NASTY. Some heads gonna be EXPLODING here real soon! Popcorn?

[ReignOfError]

No state would have ever joined the union if they thought they could not secede if the Federal gubmint became too overbearing.

1/3 of the states joined the Union during or after the Civil War, when it was pretty clear secession wouldn't fly.

[Michael Zak]

Good point. As Lincoln explained, “more perfect” meant “stronger.”

[ought-six]

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”.

[runninglips]

Yep.....

[Thermalseeker]

Absent a right to secede, a state could be held a virtual prisoner by the federal government and/or other states....

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.....