Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul is wrong on the Civil War and slavery, and he should be ashamed
Grand Old Partisan ^ | August 5, 2010 | Chuck Devore

Posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 861 next last
To: arrogantsob

I think we pick and choose what we are “allowed” by the federal government to do and what we are not allowed to do. Sorry. I don’t see any difference. Of course its for the betterment of the nation to forbid the southern states to secede. The southern states through their conservative voting somewhat keeps the feds in check. The sparsely populated western states (Bless them) couldn’t do it on their own. In 2008, the usually conservative states deviated somewhat and voila! We got Obama.


121 posted on 08/05/2010 8:23:00 AM PDT by beckysueb (January 20, 2013. When Obama becomes just a skidmark on the panties of American history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
"To tide you over try this legal conundrum I’ve found:"

It's an interesting connundrum that is being played out all over the United States right now. I think Walter Williams said it best. I heard him say that you can always violate the law and stand up for your individual rights. However be prepared for the consequences of your actions. Something like that.

Anyways, the right to keep and bear arms is spelled out in a lot of state and federal constitutions and is a widely recognized natural right. The power of one state to secede from the United States I don't find anywhere as a right or power.
122 posted on 08/05/2010 8:24:13 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: drangundsturm

Lincoln had little to do with the initiation of the war. Slavers were so determined to keep slavery that they started long BEFORE Lincoln was even elected to effect secession. Buchanan’s cabinet was filled with men who transferred arms to Southern depots and dispersed troops to keep them from easy use against the South.

A Federal fort was attacked. A fort that was CLEARLY US property.

The South was better prepared for war than the Union was and had been long working just for that end.

Slavery was not as concentrated area-wise in other countries
and did not have pre-existing political institutions (separate semi-sovereign states) to aid a rebellion so it was easier to change without war. Nor was there as much economic power in the hands of domestic slavers. In other European countries the majority of slaves were outside the countries. Lincoln had nothing to do with the situation he inherited or his enemies’ reactions.


123 posted on 08/05/2010 8:24:28 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: central_va
"Your posts might benefit from "because I said so" at the end, as there is no way to validate your opinions with fact."

Hey cva, I see you're doing a little Liberal Projection already this morning!

124 posted on 08/05/2010 8:24:37 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

I’d say you are more correct than the south-north kneejerk reactions.


125 posted on 08/05/2010 8:28:35 AM PDT by beckysueb (January 20, 2013. When Obama becomes just a skidmark on the panties of American history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

Virtually every word of your post indicates that you do NOT know how the Constitution was created nor what it actually means.

Legislatures were DELIBERATELY kept out of the ratification process because the intent was to keep them from using the argument you use. A constitution is not an ordinary law which can be changed by legislative action. The founders made sure that was the case.

State legislatures in NO way approved entry into the Union. Their ONLY role was to establish CONVENTIONS within the states to decide the issue.

The “feds” sparked nothing. Lincoln had to defend US institutions and property ATTACKED by the slavers.


126 posted on 08/05/2010 8:29:43 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DwFry

Nothing is contradicted. Self-rule is upheld by providing for the means of changing the constitution through amendment.
It cannot be changed by less than a majority of the states. It cannot be changed by armed rebellion against the legitimate government.


127 posted on 08/05/2010 8:34:06 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

States never were “promised” any such thing. That is simply a falsehood.


128 posted on 08/05/2010 8:35:25 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Timocrat
"What I'm anxious to establish is the right to seccede because a Federal government which requires you to buy health insurance is most certainly acting "Ultra Vires" the powers granted to it by the states under the Constitution."

I don't get the connection between some supposed power to secede and the current health care debate. As noted in post 78, the writer of the Constitution didn't think a state had any power to secede. He and Jefferson also proved that by their actions vis a vis in regards to the New England states during their presidencies. Jefferson and the founders believed you had the moral authority to rebell against a government if it became abusive and controlling. The Federal government under Lincoln wanted to not extend slavery to the new states and territories. They never tried to abolish slavery in the Southern states until after they were in rebellion. How is a government being abusive to it's citizens by not extending slavery to any new states or territories that join the union?

You are trying to claim that the states retained some sort of power to opt out of the United States. It's not backed up by history. They can rebell, but not just decide to opt out. However, history does back up the fact that the United States government has never forced it's citizens to buy a product or service.
129 posted on 08/05/2010 8:35:30 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak; drangundsturm
Lincoln wanted to save the Union at all costs. In the letter response to Horace Greeley, Lincoln stated that he did not agree with those who would not save the Union unless they could save slavery at the same time. His stated object was to save the Union, not to save or destroy slavery. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Whether Lincoln hurt or helped the slaves, it was all for the sake and well-being of the Union. "The sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be 'the Union as it was.'"

Supreme power (of the federal government) was intentionally not made part of the Constitution because it would have never been ratified otherwise.
Slavery was not specifically cited in the Constitution for similar reason.
"Slavery in the territories" had been a federal power since the Northwest Ordinance which predated the Constitution. The issue was how, and therefore which, territories.
Taxation and allocation of the income from taxes were provided for in the Constitution and the south believed that both taxes and trade tariffs were being applied unfairly and to the detriment of agricultural (slave) states.

When South Carolina left the union, leaving a federal fort blocking Charleston harbor to be resolved, they hoped for the arrival of troop ships to remove that federal presence.
Instead, they got resupply ships enabling the union to retrench and remain.
SC considered that resupply as a use of force and intention to remain by threat of force and if force is legitimate to stop secession, then force is equally legitimate to bring secession about.
When they fired on one of those ships, and Sumter, they had no thought of treason because they held the union to have been dissolved by the act of secession.

The right to secede was then a 50/50 proposition and deciding that issue was the true cause for the unlimited extent and carnage of that war.
"Treason" became an accepted stigma as a means of sustaining adequate support for the war in the north.

It can readily be argued that northern abolitionists "caused" the war by limiting any president's ability to negotiate or conciliate, by encouraging revolt within the South, and by inflaming Northern emotions.

Since talk of secession is once again making the news here in the US, some here might want to reconsider their hard line beliefs regarding the war between North and South.

As to the question in #9:
I doubt such a deal was possible in 1861 but, given Sherman, Reconstruction, and the fact that this side of East Texas there was little geography that would be hospitable to a slave economy, I'd certainly rather they could have pulled it off by peaceful means a decade or so later.

Finally, Ron Paul and Chuck DeVore are both idiots.

130 posted on 08/05/2010 8:40:34 AM PDT by norton (my quarterly response rant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Nice try but it does not provide cover for secession.
Without the discussion of WHY voters voted the way they did the excerpt is useless. You Defenders of the Indefensible are always trying to pull stunts like that to “prove” your point. Almost always when your quotes are analyzed in content they wind up proving the opposite to what you want.

Then the next thread even after being shown to be inappropriate the same quote will be used as though the prior discussion never took place.


131 posted on 08/05/2010 8:40:41 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

Glad you mentioned divorce.

Divorce is NOT one party walking away and saying s/he is no longer married. At least in non-moslem countries.

Divorce is a LEGAL process accomplished through the courts.

Amendment of the constitution is ALSO a legal process.


132 posted on 08/05/2010 8:43:25 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: norton
"Since talk of secession is once again making the news here in the US, some here might want to reconsider their hard line beliefs regarding the war between North and South."

Rebellion and secession are two different terms. I see more talk of rebellion than secession.
133 posted on 08/05/2010 8:44:41 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

The American People never signed on to the British Empire.

They, on the other hand, CREATED the Union along with the means of changing it should it become unsatisfactory.


134 posted on 08/05/2010 8:45:17 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

I see some of both, and mostly from hot-heads hoping to agitate others to actually do the “heavy lifting”. Pity since it detracts from the serious business at hand.


135 posted on 08/05/2010 8:47:01 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Interestingly, if you look at the Constitution, nowhere does it say what the name of the country is. The country was named “The United States of America” in the Articles of Confederation, so obviously part of the Articles of Confederation survives to this day. An undeniable fact.

Prior to the 10th Amendment, prior even to the Constitution, the perpetual union already existed, the states already had agreed to surrender any right to secede. If the 10th Amendment was intended to abolish the perpetuity of the union, the 10th amendment would have said so specifically. The founders were certainly very specific about Perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation, and the founders were not big on “emanations from the penumbra”.

I also refer you to MNJohnnie’s post #78 above, where Madison trashes secessionism.

136 posted on 08/05/2010 8:47:31 AM PDT by Cheburashka (Stephen Decatur: You want barrels of gunpowder as tribute, you must expect cannonballs with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The Fort was clearly US property ceded by the State to the National government decades before.

If you want to declare war start shooting at federal property.


137 posted on 08/05/2010 8:49:26 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
The Southern states could have called a constitutional convention, they could have tried to do so politically.

They did not have to. Just as no convention is necessary to grant rights, no convention is necessary to assert them.

138 posted on 08/05/2010 8:50:15 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

It is precluded by the nature of the term “constitution” which was the FOUNDATION of the Union and could only be changed by the amendment process.


139 posted on 08/05/2010 8:51:48 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Slavery was legal, although immoral, it's legacy was part of our country racist past North and South.

FYI - thousands of blacks in this country were slave owners. Some were slave breeders, selling their own offspring into slavery.

Slavery was about money and selfishness, not racism.

140 posted on 08/05/2010 8:54:31 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 861 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson