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]

... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

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

Looks like we may have that opportunity. Of the people, by the people, for the people is once again perishing.

[allmendream]

And conducts the trials of the vanquished.

International law has but one precept.

The strong do what they will. The weak suffer what they must.

[central_va]

No secession doesn’t fall under ANY amendment and is NOT legal there is no right to secede.

It's this attitude that ensures there will be a CWII, that maybe a good thing, better to fight on two feet than kneel to statism. Keep it up, please. Your screen name is perfect.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Well James Madison, one of the men most intimately involved in crafting the US Constitution, would say this argument that the Constitution allows for secession is total nonsense."

Thank you for your research.

[central_va]

Answer this please, why would the senate vote on a bill making secession illegal if it was already codified in the USC? I guess you don't like what is in this post do you?

[barb-tex]

Ol Mad George III ( an earlier Lincoln) didn’t take to much to the idea. Fortunatly we won. Shame they couldn’t have settled on a price to continue the Slave export program which Abe favored over conflict.

[Timocrat]

Per the Constitution, rights are something accorded an individual that comes from God. Powers are something that individuals delegate to governments to perform on their behalf. Secession would not be a right, but a power so how exactly would Jefferson here be talking about secession?

Not all "rights " come from God. "Rights" can be established under a contract or compact. If I enter into a contract with a builder to build a house and he doesn't build it to my specifications per the contract then I (usually) have a right to void the contract. It was of such "Rights " that Jefferson wrote. Instead of calling it secession he called it rupture.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Answer this please, why would the senate vote on a bill making secession illegal if it was already codified in the USC?"

I never said that this was codified in the Constitution. In fact what I said is that it is never mentioned in the Constitution. What I asked is where did the founders ever say that there was this power by the states to secede in the first place? I can't find it. However, the writer of the constitution obviously thought this power did not exist. Please read the scholarly research done in post 78.

Tell me something. Did the people in the Southern states have a right to oppress people's liberties? Did the slaves in the Southern states have a God given natural right to rebel against their oppressors?

[OneWingedShark]

An.American.Expatriate, let's try explaining this with pictures:

Let A represent "Federal Government's powers as delegated & Enumerated by the Constitution" and be the ellipse formed by areas #1 & #2.
Let B represent "State Government's powers and responsibilities" and be the ellipse formed by areas #2 & #3.
Let C represent the rights & responsibilities of the people and be the rectangle #4.

Because of the nature of authority, a certain power/position cannot institute a separate/subordinate power/position with GREATER powers than the parent.
This diagram then correctly shows the derivations of powers known as governments to be of less sweeping powers than that of the people.
There are some areas where there is an overlap between Federal and State powers, namely defense: witness the clause of [state] militia called up in service of the Federal Government in the Constitution.

The tenth amendment states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This is correctly portrayed as the shaded area ['powers not delegated'], as you can see the Federal government has no authority over powers not so delegated.

[ml/nj]

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

Here's a MTP transcript excerpt I found:

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..

MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

What about this do you find "ignorant," except perhaps that he seems to concede that the War Between the States was fought to eliminate slavery?

ML/NJ

[Cheburashka]

There’s not a word about *keeping* it either.

---

Why mention something you aren't changing, and have no intention of changing? If you want something abolished, you should mention it. There is nothing in the Constitution saying “The Articles are rescinded.” There is nothing it the Constitution saying “The Perpetual Union is now temporary and transitory.”

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"It was of such "Rights " that Jefferson wrote. Instead of calling it secession he called it rupture."

Jefferson in your quote talked about not having to submit to a government of unlimited powers. Would you define unlimited powers as a government trying to ensure that new member states and territories had the rights of all it's people's protected (i.e. not extending slavery to the new states and territories)? Thats what the Southern states were rebelling against after all. The federal government was not even trying to force the Southern states to abolish slavery.

[Cheburashka]

Thank you for bringing this quotation to my attention.

[central_va]

Tell me something. Did the people in the Southern states have a right to oppress people's liberties? Did the slaves in the Southern states have a God given natural right to rebel against their oppressors?

Slavery was legal, although immoral, it's legacy was part of our country racist past North and South. The manufacturing culture of the North didn't need the slave model so in the early 19th century they sold all their slaves "down the river" to the south. Then they (Northern mercantile class) raised tariffs on imports after making money on selling their slaves to the south. Then they turned against that "peculiar" institution on moral grounds making the hypocrisy factor unbelievable.

[DManA]

Why can't people simply disagree without placing placing themselves on a moral plateau?

and he should be ashamed.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

So Ron Paul was saying the Federal government should have just bought all of the slaves. What if the people did not want to sell their slaves Mr. Paul, what then? He makes it sound so easy. Besides, the Emancipation proclamation was not done (abolishing slavery) until 1863 when the southern states were already in rebellion. Before the Civil War Lincoln never talked about abolishing slavery, merely not extending slavery to new states and territories.

[Sloth]

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

"Illegally"? Stopped reading here.

[OneWingedShark]

>No place does the Constitution say, “The Articles are rescinded.” No place does the Constitution say, “The formerly perpetual union is now temporary and transitory.” The Convention didn’t have an objection to continuing the perpetual union thing, so they left it the way it was. Nothing dubious about it at all.

The Constitution created a Federal government called the United States, correct?
The Constitution sets up the structure of that government, correct?
The Constitution also delineates specific powers & responsibilities to that government, correct?
The Constitution makes no mention of secession, correct?
The Constitution also says, in the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” correct?
Therefore, if secession [or using force to prevent it] is not specifically mentioned [delegated] to the United States by the Constitution then it must be reserved to the States or the People, correct?

[central_va]

What if the people did not want to sell their slaves buy health insurance Mr. Paul, what then?

[Sloth]

A supposed constitutional right for a state to secede did not occur to people until the 1820s. It never even came up during the convention or ratification.

Probably because it was so obvious and self-evident that there was no reason to discuss it. For the Framers to secede from Britain but deny the right of secession to their own states would make them colossal hypocrites.