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...

[An.American.Expatriate]

WT Heck is wrong with you people? Can you not read?

[usmcobra]

I can read, I just want to see you put it specifically in writing.

[rustbucket]

I tell you what. Rustbucket is a Civil War aficionado who has a wealth of CW trivia. What say we ping him and see what he can add to the conversation regarding the use of Ft. Sumter as a tariff collection point.

Thanks for the ping. Fort Sumter was never used as a tariff collection point. It was originally intended for the defense of Charleston and Charleston Harbor and, as has been pointed out above, was never really staffed until Major Anderson moved his troops into it in December 1860.

That being said, the fort could have been used in the future to enforce the Union tariff by threatening or bombarding ships trying to enter the harbor without paying the tariff to Union ships patrolling outside the harbor.

Immediately after the Star of the West incident, Anderson made a threat to block the passage of any ships within range of his guns, but he never actually did it. [See: Official Records, Series 1, volume 1, Part 1, page 134]

Some in the North did envision using the forts to enforce the tariff [Source: The Philadelphia Free Press, January 15, 1861, from an old post by nolu chan, my emphasis below]:

In the enforcement of the revenue laws, the forts are of primary importance. Their guns cover just so much ground as is necessary to enable the United States to enforce their laws.... Those forts the United States must maintain. It is not a question of coercing South Carolina, but of enforcing the revenue laws.... The practical point, either way is -- whether the revenue laws of the United States shall or shall not be enforced at those three ports, Charleston, Beaufort, and Georgetown, or whether they shall or shall not be made free ports, open to the commerce of the world, with no other restriction upon it than South Carolina shall see proper to impose.... Forts are to be held to enforce the revenue laws, not to conquer a state.

[Castlebar]

The USC is silent on the issue of secession.

The original 13 colonies ratified the Articles of Confederation, in which they pledged "Perpetual Union."

The opening line of the Constitution of the United States, which superceded the Articles, begins, "WE, THE PEOPLE, in order to form a a more perfect union.... "

From a contract law standpoint, there is no right to succession for the original 13, nor for any state that joined the union thereafter (although an argument can be made in the completely unique case of the Lone Star State.)

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"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"

Why is it that you and you alone get to set the terms of this debate? Why do I have to answer all of your questions? I finally got you to the crux of the argument and you don't want to make a stand. I'm not interested in some airy debate that would happen at Harvard Yard. I'm interested (on this thread) in defending the actions of Lincoln and the North. That is the whole crux of this thread. You know, Ron Paul blasting Lincoln and blaming the whole Civil War on Lincoln?

As for the founders saying the they cannot secede, we talked about it. As Madison stated except for some intolerable grievance they can't secede. Yet you can't name the intolerable grievance that was created. If you're going to defend the Southern states' actions, then defend them!! Make a stand!!! Give me the intolerable grievance that would justify them being allowed to secede (as Madison talked of). As you have stated, you can't!!

You're not interested in that debate because you know that it has been shown that the South did not have a lawful reason to secede and they started the hostilities. Those are the most important points to refute Ron Paul's idiocy in blaming 600,000 deaths on Lincoln.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

That honour generally goes to the victor ;D

True enough. I'm sure that, had the Americans lost their revolution, the British would have said that the grievances listed in their abortive Declaration of Independence weren't nearly enough to justify their rebellion against the crown.

That's why it's always a good idea to win your rebellions.

[Ditto]

Some in the North did envision using the forts to enforce the tariff...

I suppose those who thought that possible did not remotely comprehend the tactical situation. Sumter would be a nearly impregnable fortress in regards to an attack from the sea. But as we saw in April of 1861, it was pretty much defenseless against land-based batteries. It was reduced almost to rubble less than 40 hours from those land-based batteries. Fort Sumter was built to defend Charleston against a naval invasion, not to defend itself against an attack from Charleston.

[An.American.Expatriate]

I can read, I just want to see you put it specifically in writing.

Oh really? I gues you overlooked this:

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.

[usmcobra]

I read that too, what I want is more specific instead of legal beagle mumbled jumble.

Can you say that the south was right to secede it’s “right” to own humans as property?

If you cannot or won’t, quit this thread.

[rustbucket]

Confederates held the fort until 1865 despite both sea and land based shelling by the Union and an attempted assault by 400 sailors and marines in 25 boats.

On February 17, 1865, the Confederates left the fort. By the end, the fort was pretty much a pile of rubble. There are some pictures of the rubble in Link 1 and Link 2. Those old brick forts couldn't stand up to the newer canons of the time.

[central_va]

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

I believe any state(s) can secede for any reason as long as the legislature, Governor and any special convention agree to it. It is not for any other state or the Federal Govt. to decide on if the reason meets any kind of muster, constitutional or otherwise. To think otherwise puts you on the same plane as Augustus Caesar.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Interesting that you consider human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be ‘crap’.

[Ditto]

From your own Link #1.

The Confederacy never surrendered Fort Sumter, but General William T. Sherman’s advance through South Carolina finally forced the Confederates to evacuate Charleston on February 17, 1865 and abandon Fort Sumter.

[usmcobra]

I didn’t ask you.

We all know that you would support secession if the south did it so that they had the right to enslave you.

[central_va]

It’s a good question and deserves an answer.

[An.American.Expatriate]

As Madison stated except for some intolerable grievance they can't secede.

Thank you for conceeding that secession is legal under the constitution.

Why is it that you and you alone get to set the terms of this debate?

I dont. Instead, I asked you politly way back at the beginning if we could limit the discussion and you agreed. If you woluld like to discuss the causes and justifications, I sure others are willing to do so. I have no desire to debate the civil war again and again on these boards - it has been done repeatedly and nothing good every comes of it ...

[usmcobra]

Then don’t beat around the bush, would you support secession as a state’s right even if they were seceding to enslave you and make you the property of another human?

[An.American.Expatriate]

Intersting that you can’t debate a point with emotions ...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Then don’t beat around the bush, would you support secession as a state’s right even if they were seceding to enslave you and make you the property of another human?"

That's a question for you. Remember, my position is that they did not have the right to just declare they were seceeding from the union. You are the one who holds the position that they could secede anytime they wished. Besides, that was never in question during the secession crisis. At issue was the ability to extend slavery to new states/territories.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

whoops! I thought you were someone else. Sorry for the last post. I do not believe they had the legal right to just declare they were seceding from the union.