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...

[Jim W N]

Ron Paul’s got some loose screws rattling around in there somewhere.

[TalonDJ]

seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States

When in the course of human events it becomes.... etc.

[allmendream]

Well, that only works if you WIN. If you win it becomes legal. When you lose it was always illegal.

The difference between a rebellion and a revolution is success! Success makes all the difference in the world.

Hannibal’s brother ALSO crossed the Alps with elephants, even more of them! But while Hannibal kicked buttocks in Italy for sixteen years, his brother was defeated and killed. We all know Hannibal’s name, who the hell was his brother? ;)

[central_va]

As for states not having the right to secede, that is obvious, as the United States was created with the ratification of the Constitution hence only a legal dissolving of the same could allow a state to become independent. The states that voted for secession in 1860-61 could have followed the legal route in calling for a Constitutional convention or for an amendment to the Constitution allowing them to secede. But, they chose the route of rebellion and war instead.

The USC is silent on the issue of secession. It would not have been ratified had that provision been in the original USC in 1787.

The US Senate tried to make secession illegal by legislation, which was voted down, I think this was 1860.

[Russ]

Maybe the outcome will be different the next time...

[Onelifetogive]

The USC is silent on the issue of secession.

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

[tgusa]

The victor writes the history books.

[drangundsturm]

While I don’t have as extreme a view as Mr. Paul, I do think Lincoln mishandled the entire situation and his own actions contributed to the events leading up to the war.

Think of it this way: what other major country had a deadly civil war when they abolished slavery? The vast majority of countries found political ways to end slavery without massive bloodshed. This is something Lincoln failed to do. Sure, once the shooting started it was too late, but there seem to me to have been a lot of mistakes earlier that hardened everyone’s positions and lead to the conflict. Maybe it was inevitable, maybe not. We’ll never know for sure. But I don’t think analyzing this question should be beyond the range of discourse.

An interesting question, which nobody asks because it is basically radioactive in today’s environment, is: What if some compromise could have been reached that would have ended slavery without bloodshed, say, ten years later, around 1875. 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? Or would the moral thing to do still have been to immediately end slavery and doom hundreds of thousands of people to grisly deaths and many more to horrible injuries, followed by a hundred years of strife?

[Thermalseeker]

"As for states not having the right to secede, that is obvious, as the United States was created with the ratification of the Constitution hence only a legal dissolving of the same could allow a state to become independent."

This is total BS. No state would have ever joined the union if they thought they could not secede if the Federal gubmint became too overbearing. It had been less than 100 years since the Revolutionary war and gubmint oppression was fresh on everyone's minds. States do indeed have the power and the right to secede. State Legislatures had to approve entry into the union and State Legislatures can decide to pull out if the people of that state deem it necessary to do so. It was the Feds who said no to this and that is what sparked the war. It's been a downhill slide in terms of a massively overreaching Federal gubmint every since.....

[cookcounty]

I didn’t realize Ron Paul was this ignorant. Is that quote accurate? Out of context?

[the_Watchman]

coupled with economic aid to the south . . .

The federal government did not engage in massive aid programs involving cash then. They didn't have the money for it. Remember that the income tax was still in the distant future.

I added the "involving cash" because they did provide lots of largess to fund the railroads but that was done by giving away land.

[gunnyg]

How wrong can ya get?

Stang: The GOP, Red From The Start....
*****
Thomas Dilorenzo...Our Republic Cannot Be Restored Until GOP Destroyed!
*****
COMMIE CHICAGO~ Al Benson
*****

---

FOOD FOR THOUGHT - Chuck Baldwin Archive
*****

[DwFry]

Cant people just disagree sometimes? Why are people always looking to create a devil as opposed to simply disagreeing on a historical event?

[DwFry]

“For Congressman Paul’s benefit – and for his supporters who may not know – seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States”

Sounds like 13 Colonies I heard of once. They did it “illegally” once too.

[RaceBannon]

Ron Paul acolytes include ADAM KOKESH the anti-war protestor

that says enough...

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"When in the course of human events it becomes.... etc."

Yes, and they formed this new alliance called the Federal government. All the southern states signed onto it. Where in this legal document called the constitution was any state given the right to secede? The southern states were performing an act of rebellion and the federal government had every right to protect the union and to secure the liberty of the enslaved people. What is a government for if it is not there to protect the natural God given rights of it's people?

As the article points out, Lincoln and the Republicans were trying to do this through peaceful and political means. It was the southern states that wanted to oppose this through armed rebellion. Ron Paul is wrong and it sometimes makes me wonder about his son. I hope he's not crazy like his Dad.

[cookcounty]

"his own actions contributed to the events leading up to the war."

Hostilities began 4 months before Lincoln was sworn in.

Are you speaking of his actions as a one-term member member of the House from 1846-48?

[doodad]

Remember that the income tax was still in the distant future.

Actually, today is the anniversary of the first income tax implementation in 1861 by the Lincoln Administration and Congress.

[DwFry]

“What is a government for if it is not there to protect the natural God given rights of it’s people?”

Like the God given right of self rule? A government “by the people, for the people”?

You might wanna re-think your position because your entire post contradicts the last sentence.