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...

[Non-Sequitur]

Bibb Iron Works

Established in 1861. You don't imagine the rebellion had something to do with it do you?

[rockrr]

You mean the Government owned Bibb Iron Works? Now there's some spirited industry for ya!

[central_va]

Columbus Naval Iron Works

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Who ever said anything about New England? Jefferson was talking about Virginia,"

I did. In the original post that you were responding to. Jefferson did not feel that the tarriff being suffered on the New England states was enough to justify secession while he was President. Again, you are lacking in reading comprehension and taking this discussion somewhere way past it's original purpose. Yes, I agree with Jefferson that tarriffs are burdensome and should not be imposed in most cases. However, it has nothing to do with whether tarriffs arise to the point of states wanting to secede.

Since you wanted to take this way off point. I will refocus by restating my original post that got this off on a tangent. Because of how Jefferson reacted during the New England crisis during his Presidency, I doubt he would have felt that tarrifs (one of the south's justifications for secession) rose to the level for a reason to secede. I also doubt he would have felt that not extending slavery to the new states and territories would rise to that level also.

I doubt you will see this logic because you are wrapped up in this notion of the ante bellum south could do no wrong. And I suspect that if the reconquistas in LaRaza today could get Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California to secede from the union and become part of Mexico you would have no problems with this right? You also would have no problems with the Muslims taking over enough of Michighan to force a vote to secede and get it passed right? I'm sure you are furiously campaigning for the Basques in Spain to have their rights to break away from Spain and start a new country.

[Non-Sequitur]

The state was home to four of the 39 iron furnaces in the Confederacy in 1860...

There were almost twice as many iron furnaces in Ohio alone - 69 - in 1860 as there were in the entire South. Heck of an industrial base you have there, and once which certainly accounted for that a massive demand for English machinery that provided 85% of the total revenue. </sarcasm>

[Ditto]

Wrong. The power to create new states could be exercised only by Congress, with the consent of the affected state legislatures. Neither applied in the case of West Virginia’s “secession” from Virginia.

You are incorrect. They had the consent of the 'Restored' Government of Virginia. They followed Article IV, Section 3 precisely. Read the history here.

[central_va]

Ok, nobody said there was parity, apparently there was enough industrial production to keep the Union at bay for four years. This phony picture of no industrial production in the south is another myth that people of your ilk seem to like to peddle. Look, you guys lose credibility with every post where you lie and try to misrepresent EVERYTHING about the civil war. This leads to a loss of reputation, not that any neo-Yankee has any self respect anyway.

[conimbricenses]

Don't dance around the issue. I posted a carefully qualified statement that "women and blacks generally could not vote" before the Civil War, and you misrepresented it as stating incorrectly that NO blacks could vote before the Civil War.

I do not know whether you did so willfully or by accident, but the fact remains you did. The polite thing to do now would be to apologize and move on, but I have a feeling that you will likely take another route. Probably out of stubborn incorrigibility, thus proving that you do not come into this discussion seeking to advance your understanding of a topic but rather to brow beat a point, even if that point is factually in error.

[conimbricenses]

Jefferson did not feel that the tarriff being suffered on the New England states was enough to justify secession while he was President.

Once again your history is confused, if not outright lacking. There was no tariff to complain about during Jefferson's presidency, or at least not in the protective sense, because the first overtly protectionist tariff was not adopted until 1816.

The quotation of Jefferson that I posted - and to which you most assuredly responded - was written in 1825, after protectionist tariffs had been entrenched and raised progressively higher for almost a decade. And you need not doubt whether his complaint with that policy would rise to the level of secession because he said so himself in the same letter!

[Non-Sequitur]

Ok, nobody said there was parity, apparently there was enough industrial production to keep the Union at bay for four years.

Built out of necessity as a result of the war, as your sources make clear, and even then it was unable to meet Southern demands. Prior to the rebellion there was little interest in developing any kind of industrial base, so the idea that the South imported massive amounts of industrial machinery from Great Britain, and paid 85% of the total tariffs collected as a result, is absolute nonsense.

This phony picture of no industrial production in the south is another myth that people of your ilk seem to like to peddle.

By comparison there was none, and nothing you've provided disputes that.

Look, you guys lose credibility with every post where you lie and try to misrepresent EVERYTHING about the civil war.

ROTFLMAO!!! OK, you win. The original seven confederate states were a veritable industrial powerhouse prior to the war. Slavery didn't exist. It was all about the tariff.

[central_va]

Prior to the rebellion there was little interest in developing any kind of industrial base,

I guess making steam engines and rolling forges don't count prior to the Northern Empire's Invasion

Tredegar Iron Works

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"you misrepresented it as stating incorrectly that NO blacks could vote before the Civil War."

No, I said in post 417 you were incorrect. You are misrepresenting what I said. Now according to your own ideas, you should be apologizing to me. I won't hold my breath while waiting.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"you misrepresented it as stating incorrectly that NO blacks could vote before the Civil War."

No, I said in post 417 you were incorrect. You are misrepresenting what I said. Now according to your own ideas, you should be apologizing to me. I won't hold my breath while waiting.

[Non-Sequitur]

I guess making steam engines and rolling forges don't count prior to the Northern Empire's Invasion.

Didn't I say something about there not being much of a Southern industrial base outside of Virginia? I seem to recall making that statement, but even with Virginia the confederacy's industrial strength was a fraction of that of the North. In spite of all that industrial machinery you were supposed to be importing. I wonder why that was?

[rockrr]

Perhaps they were taking in all that machinery so that they could melt it down into chains?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"There was no tariff to complain about during Jefferson's presidency, or at least not in the protective sense"

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-new-england-secession-movement-a133296

You're right in one sense. It was not a tarrif but an outright trade embargo with England and France. A little worse than a tarriff forcing the South to buy the North's goods would you not say? Still Jefferson did not feel that was so onerous by the Federal government that the New England states to secede. The point still stands, he would not have found onerous tarriffs to rise to the level of secession. Nothing you have shown of Jefferson says that. It says that he did not believe in tarriffs. Fine, I don't either.

The main point I made you have not refuted, Jefferson or Madison would not have found the south's two main points to rise to the level of secession. The tarriffs and not extending slavery to the new states and territories.

[conimbricenses]

It was not a tarrif (sic)but an outright trade embargo with England and France.

Very good. And if you look at the constitution, tariffs and embargoes are two VERY different things. Tariffs fall under the Revenue Clause and therefore (according to the theory Jefferson applied, at least) must serve a primary revenue function as a domestic fiscal policy. Embargoes fall within the jurisdiction of foreign policy under the Commerce Clause, and serve a military/diplomatic purpose as was the case with the Napoleonic War embargoes of the late Jefferson administration.

Put another way, an embargo by its very definition has clear constitutional sanction as an uncontested power of the federal government. A tariff may or may not, depending on its use for revenue. And according to the Jeffersonians, only tariffs that were designed to produce revenue met constitutional muster whereas those that were designed to protect domestic industry did not.

[conimbricenses]

Your exact quote was:

"So then you agree that your statement about no blacks being allowed to vote in the north was incorrect."

With that in mind, I invite you to show me where I ever said that *NO* blacks were allowed to vote before the Civil War.

If you cannot, then I must conclude that (1) your original statement above was incorrect at the time it was made and (2) you are now lying about making that statement by suggesting that it was either never made or has been misrepresented.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

And I agree with his position on Tarriffs!!! How many times do I have to say that????? It's not the frickin' point of the debate. The point of the debate is to show that Jefferson would not have thought that the South's weak excuses rose to the level of secession!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you frickin tone deaf!!!!!!!!!!

No, you're just an anti bellum south apologist no matter what evidence is brought forth. As I said to you many posts ago. You choose to believe what you want to because great great grandaddy fought for dixie or some grandma told you about hating Yankees or some other stupid reason. I have shown you all kinds of evidence that you ignore. All you want to hang onto was that Jefferson didn't like tarriffs. I guess with the amount of tarriffs we have on industry today means that Jefferson would think we should just completely dissolve the union now, right?

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Your exact quote was:

"So then you agree that your statement about no blacks being allowed to vote in the north was incorrect."

My exact quote in post 417 was: "You are incorrect:"

You again misrepresent what I said. But then I expect that.