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...

[Mind-numbed Robot]

And what was the intolerable abuse that existed for the Southern states to secede?

Some say it was the tariff imposed on imported goods. That made it more expensive to import machinery than it was to pay the unnecessarily high prices of the same machinery from the Northern states. That was unbearable to many in the agrarian South.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

They are listed Here

Then you must agree that, overwhelmingly, it was about slavery and the related issues, since that's overwhelmingly what is discussed in the Declarations of Causes.

PS - This does not imply that I agree with the causes listed - it is simply the abuses cited at the time ...

Which brings up the question of just what qualifies as intolerable abuse and who gets to decide.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I have a hunch that the causes of the the south's anxieties lie a bit further back than Lincoln ..."

And yet you can't name those causes. Look every state has had a gripe every now and again during the history of this great country. There have been talk of secession many times, not just leading up to the Civil War. As noted previously, the New England states talked of sucession at the very beginning of this country. Two southerners as President (Jefferson and Madison) put the kibosh on that.

"The only thing the Republican party was for was not extending slavery to new states and territories. Was that so oppressive to the Southern states?"

IMHO - and based soley on that statement! - no"

Then tell me what was the truly oppressive event the Republican party of that era or the Union in general did to the Southern states that was cause for secession? Everything that I've read points to the extension of slavery issue to new states and territories. If you have information, bring it forth. Don't talk of generalities of the South's Anxieties. Talk specifics.

Lets also not forget that the shooting part was also initiated by those same Southern states, not by the Union forces. How can so many of you Southern sympathizers complain about how the Civil War was initiated by the North when the plane facts are that the Southern militia/states were the ones that started shooting first?

[usmcobra]

There was a simple solution for the south to gain the necessary seats in the congress to repeal the tariff that were imposed upon them.

Do you know what that solution was?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"PS - This does not imply that I agree with the causes listed - it is simply the abuses cited at the time ... "

And it's the same poppycock that I've heard before. Again, which of those things in that long list was so intolerable and so abusive?

[An.American.Expatriate]

Which brings up the question of just what qualifies as intolerable abuse and who gets to decide.

That honour generally goes to the victor ;D

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Some say it was the tariff imposed on imported goods."

The same reason that the New England states gave at the beginning of the 19th century. Two founding fathers (Jefferson and Madison) as Presidents were unconvinced of this. And the New England states ended up not trying to secede and their militia forces did not fire on union troops. These things were solved politically.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Okay - fine.

I gave you the info you asked for. You dont agree that it rises to the standard. I DONT CARE. The question was whether the states had the “right”. You obviously want to refight the war - then do it with someone else!

[Old Teufel Hunden]

Wow, you get really huffy when you lose the argument. Common sense, history and our founders (as I’ve pointed out) have stated it did not rise to that standard.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

The only thing the Republican party was for was not extending slavery to new states and territories. Was that so oppressive to the Southern states?

Some of the things I have read say that after many years of slavery, remember slavery existed on this continent for more than 200 years before the war, the population had grown enough that the slave owners were faced with a growing population of slaves and no where to take them or no one to sell them to. The importation of slaves had been banned years earlier. So, the whites were in danger of being vastly outnumbered by blacks and having the value of their property greatly diminished. That was ample motivation to have more territory in which to expand. That was the crux of the fight over new states and territories being slave or non-slave.

Add that to the tariff issue and those are two pretty strong political motivations for secession.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

There was a simple solution for the south to gain the necessary seats in the congress to repeal the tariff that were imposed upon them.

Do you know what that solution was?

Not at the moment so please tell me.

[usmcobra]

The very first item on the list of causes for each and every state listed there was the protection of their right to maintain slavery.

How could any one say that the south seceded for every other reason but slavery?

[An.American.Expatriate]

ROTFLMAO - if you think that ignoring every information sent to you constitutes winning an argument - enjoy it!

I for one have better things to do than argue with someone who is unwilling to even consider the other side of an argument - like maybe watching grass grow or other exciting activities.

So Old Devil Dogs - good day!

[Mind-numbed Robot]

You are fond of quoting Madison, who some consider the most important author of the Constitution, so what do you think of his argument that a state can no more secede than can the others expel one?

[usmcobra]

Not at the moment so please tell me.

You can't figure it out?

The population of the southern states governed how many representatives they sent to congress, so what could the Southern states have done to increase the number of representatives they sent to Washington?

I'll give you a hint..........3/5.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"ROTFLMAO - if you think that ignoring every information sent to you constitutes winning an argument - enjoy it!"

LOL! You have been the one ignoring the argument!! Like never responding to the fact that it was the Confederate Southern forces (before there was actually a Confederate government BTW) who intiated the hostilities by attacking Union forces.

However, if you think I'm ignoring your "points", then out of that huge list you sent me that is too monotonous to read, pull out one issue that was a valid reason (in your mind) for the secession of the south. Never mind that our founders are on record as believing that a state cannot simply secede in the first place.

[An.American.Expatriate]

The very first item on the list of causes for each and every state listed there was the protection of their right to maintain slavery.

Well, since they likely equated that with thier right to property, it would seem "valid" on it's face.

How could any one say that the south seceded for every other reason but slavery?

Some may. I dont.

Disclaimer: Because some people are so obtuse - my first statement above does NOT mean I agree with the reasoning - instead the argument itself would have been one that could be argued according to the laws and customs of the time.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"so what do you think of his argument that a state can no more secede than can the others expel one?"

I agree. I suppose that through mutual consent (the seceding state and the rest of the union of states) that it can happen. In other words, through an amendment, federal law or some such process as that. However, both sides have to agree just like any other contract. Or else one side or the other would be in breach of that contract. There's a few states I'd like to expel though.... : )

[usmcobra]

Do you believe the south was right to secede over their right to own humans as property?

[An.American.Expatriate]

Never mind that our founders are on record as believing that a state cannot simply secede in the first place.

Link please? EVERY single reference to date says they dont LIKE the idea - not that it is not allowed!

Like never responding to the fact that it was the Confederate Southern forces (before there was actually a Confederate government BTW) who intiated the hostilities by attacking Union forces.

I don't recall that being a point of contention as to whether a state could secede from the Union - but if you insist - IIRC the south fired upon union forces before the union fired upon southern forces. Happy?

then out of that huge list you sent me that is too monotonous to read, pull out one issue that was a valid reason (in your mind) for the secession of the south.

1. It is NOT my job to do your work for you - if you can't be bothered to read - go to DU were they tell you what to think.
2. I do not recall ever stating that I personally felt the south was justified - indeed I specifically wanted to stay AWAY from that as it immaterial to a debate whether secession is "legal". So you can wait quite a while for a valid reason "in my mind".