[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.

[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.

[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?

[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...

[Mr. K]

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~!!!!)

[ought-six]

The right to secede was understood by the Founders. Indeed, the Constitution would not have been ratified if secession were precluded. Absent a right to secede, a state could be held a virtual prisoner by the federal government and/or other states, subject to the whim of whatever agenda floats the boat of that government or those states. No state would have ratified the Constitution under those circumstances, and no state would seek membership into a confederacy that had the power to imprison that state or hold it hostage. For an analogy, consider the compact of marriage. Is divorce an ultimate option? Of course it is. A state has the same option should circumstances get to the point where differences become irreconcilable, or basic safety and security is at risk.

[4rcane]

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

[colonel mosby]

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 ?

[Artemis Webb]

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)

[stainlessbanner]

Please file in bloggers/personal

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

[ConservativeDude]

oh, man, this thread is going to get NASTY. Some heads gonna be EXPLODING here real soon! Popcorn?

[OneWingedShark]

>seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President.

US COnstitution, Amendment X:
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.

Given that the power of succession [withdrawing from the agreement of the Constitution, ‘independence’] is not given to the United States by the Constitution it stands to reason that such powers are either the State’s or the People’s; therefore I cannot in good conscience agree with terming their declaration of independence from the federal government as ‘illegal.’

>After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...

Let’s look at the history & facts here:
1 — SC declared its independence on 20 Dec 1860
2 — The ‘first shot’ was fired at approx. 0430 on 12 Apr 1861
3 — Prior to this ‘first shot’ repeated requests/demands for the evacuation of Fort Sumter were made by SC

Given that SC was/is supposed to be a sovereign state and there were foreign troops were occupying a portion of SC, was SC justified in using force to remove them?

[gunnyg]

On Manipulated History...

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/tom-dilorenzo-on-abraham%C2%A0lincoln-us%C2%A0authoritarianism-and-manipulated%C2%A0history-by-scott-smith/

[beckysueb]

Here we go again.