LOL
Now using the Paulistinian logic when they attack and smear Palin, I think we now have indisputible evidence that Ron Paul supports slavery!
I pretty much don’t care what Ron Paul says about anything.
|
|
|
| Secession Timeline various sources |
|
|
|
|
| Platform of the Alabama Democracy -- the first Dixiecrats wanted to be able to expand slavery into the territories. It was precisely the issue of slavery that drove secession -- and talk about "sovereignty" pertained to restrictions on slavery's expansion into the territories. | January 1860 |
|
|
|
| Abraham Lincoln nominated by Republican Party | May 18, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Abraham Lincoln elected | November 6, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Robert Toombs, Speech to the Georgia Legislature -- "...In 1790 we had less than eight hundred thousand slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system they have increased above four millions. The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons. What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history, condemn the fallacy. The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death." | November 13, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Alexander H. Stephens -- "...The first question that presents itself is, shall the people of Georgia secede from the Union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not think that they ought. In my judgment, the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause to justify any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and aid still in maintaining the Constitution of the country. To make a point of resistance to the Government, to withdraw from it because any man has been elected, would put us in the wrong. We are pledged to maintain the Constitution." | November 14, 1860 |
|
|
|
| South Carolina | December 20, 1860 |
|
|
|
| Mississippi | January 9, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Florida | January 10, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Alabama | January 11, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Georgia | January 19, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Louisiana | January 26, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Texas | February 23, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Abraham Lincoln sworn in as President of the United States |
March 4, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Arizona territory | March 16, 1861 |
|
|
|
| CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, Cornerstone speech -- "...last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact." | March 21, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Virginia | adopted April 17,1861 ratified by voters May 23, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Arkansas | May 6, 1861 |
|
|
|
| North Carolina | May 20, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Tennessee | adopted May 6, 1861 ratified June 8, 1861 |
|
|
|
| West Virginia declares for the Union | June 19, 1861 |
|
|
|
| Missouri | October 31, 1861 |
|
|
|
| "Convention of the People of Kentucky" | November 20, 1861 |
|
|
|
W... T... F...?
The best analysis of the constitutional problems arising from the CW comes in Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" IMHO.
Ever hear of puppy mills Mr. Paul? Ever hear of supply and demand?
What a sleezeball!
Because it would have been unconstitutional.
The civil war was fought over state vs. Federal rights and how they pertained to the expansion of slavery into the territories.
To think it was 100% about ending slavery, is simplifying history.
It’s amazing what passes for breaking news these days...
Paul doesn’t know history very well. The slavery issue was a sidebar—it was the War of Northern Aggression. The Southern States were fighting for their right of self government—slavery was one of the issues pertaining to that. The North was trying to do exactly what the democrats are trying to do now—eliminate States Rights...When he wrote the Emanicipation Proclamation, is was to dictate to the Southern States that Federal Law supercedes State Law. That is what the war was about. So Paul’s statement shows a total lack of historical understanding.
Just shows Ron Paul, besides being a kook, has no idea how a capitalist market works. If the north bought all the slaves to free them then the southern plantation owners would have been floating with cash to purchase more slaves.
Freaking moron.
Well, whether he was blood-thirsty or not, Lincoln was definitely a big government liberal, whose first goal (according to his speeches) was not freeing the slaves but subjugating the South under federal control. During that process, he greatly strengthened the federal government (and conversely weakened state and local power) and rescinded personal rights like habeas corpus. Beyond that, he made it clear that he did not want to have freed slaves in white society; he wanted to send them back to Africa. Read his speeches. Read the transcripts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
Interesting to see so many conservatives supporting such a leftie so strongly. Perhaps it’s because he’s so iconic and has been made into such a larger-than-life mythic figure.
Slaves were becoming less valuable economically. Machines were starting to replace human labor, and had considerable benefits. They didn’t get sick and die, nor runaway; you only had to feed them when in use. Slavery would have died out in time when it simply became financially advantageous to mechanize the labor. Mechanized farming would have ended slavery just the same as it replaced horses and mules.
Reminds me of this guy http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/slaves.html who at best got scammed and at worse actually fueled a slave trade by increasing demand and enriched warlords. But he felt good...
If Paul is a kook the Professor Walter Williams is, too. He’s said exactly the same thing many times.
nutburger with cheese.
Because that would be a legal blessing of sorts that those people are just commodities and not individuals with full rights. A FREE INDIVIDUAL can't be bought or sold. Once again, Fraud Paul is an idiot.
That said, Ron Paul is nuts to link the issue to Lincoln and the war. He's overlooking the timeline. The deep South seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated, and the rebels fired on Fort Sumter three weeks after. At that point, Lincoln was faced with a war to preserve the Union -- which, let us all remember, is exactly what the Union ralling cry was at the time, with the Emancipation Proclamation not coming until late 1862.
Compensated emancipation in the pre-war decades would have been desirable. In a parliamentary system, it might have been possible. But given the southern parity in the Senate, it was a non-starter unless the South agreed.
I don’t agree with Ron Paul, but judging by some of the replies its easy to tell who grew up and never bothered to learn anything more about the War Between The States then what they were taught in government schools.
Wake up! If you believed everything they put in front of you then, you should have no problems believing what is being taught to children today. Or as history been right up till now?