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 ...
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;
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...
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”.
Yep.....
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.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.