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...

[Idabilly]

How about if the rest of the country secedes from you? Would that be alright?

-------------------------------------------------

Mr. fascist, you just don't get it, do you ? Secession has already taken place ! What we have today is what you'd call 'occupation'.

Our forbears made a decision to be free of the likes of you long ago. It's not our fault, you can't accept rejection. Let me be, Let us be, Let Dixie be !

Free Dixie !!!

[Non-Sequitur]

Congress acknoweldged this fact by forcing the southern states to reapply for statehood after the war.

Incorrect. While it's common to say that the rebel states were readmitted following reconstruction, that is inaccurate. Southern states did not reapply for statehood and they were not readmitted as states. If you read the Reconstruction Acts themselves, the make it clear that completing reconstruction itself allowed the Southern states' congressional delegations be readmitted to Congress. The Southern states themselves were not out of the Union for a single minute - before, after or during the rebellion.

[Non-Sequitur]

If a woman asks for divorce, that doesn't give the man a right to put a gun to her head and force her to submit. That's exactly what the North did to the South.

In a divorce both parties have rights to be protected and a legal representative to ensure that they are. Since you chose the analogy, why shouldn't secession be the same?

[Idabilly]

Dealing with you neo-con Lincolnites will drive any living organism crazy..

[Non-Sequitur]

Dealing with you neo-con Lincolnites will drive any living organism crazy..

In your case it would be a shot putt, probably in the 'gimme' range.

[Michael Zak]

Yes, indeed. The “seceded” states were always part of the United States.

Re-admittance to the Union was for congressional representation and elections (and the electoral college). Prior to a state’s re-admittance, residents were regarded as U.S. citizens, federal law was in force, federal officials collected tariffs and other taxes, residents were free to travel throughout the entire country, were afforded consular protection abroad, etc.

[bravedog]

In a divorce both parties have rights to be protected and a legal representative to ensure that they are. Since you chose the analogy, why shouldn't secession be the same?
It would have to be fair in order to ensure a peaceful transition. You are correct in the fact that in this case, there would be no representation for the states or the federal government, so the Hague would likely be the only recourse for an independent party. We could also choose other states or countries as independent parties to ensure a peaceful transaction. The Hague just ruled on secession actually... they said that there is nothing that can prohibit it. Do you have a better solution? Under the current system, only the federal government decides for themselves(SCOTUS).

[Idabilly]

I never thought I'd say this:

You have been officially replaced as king of the coven. This dishonor now falls to Mr. Zak. Sorry, but not even you are as Idiotic as him....

If and when you start public speaking about Saint Abraham, and cherishing any and all Federal law, including Executive Orders, we'll talk...

P.S

Sending ACORN your lunch money would speak volumes.

[bravedog]

The Constitution defines a form of government, in which the several states agree to operate under an over-arching federal government, as part of a single country.

Why do you think they did that? I would say that there were certain things that they thought were better handled as a group (protection, for one) so they let the federal government handle those things. They never said, "Hey, we submit to your will and we agree to everything you do." On the contrary, they restricted the federal government to a few select things.

If we assume that oaths mean anything at all, then an oath to uphold the Constitution is an oath to maintain that system of government -- and secession explicitly violates that oath.

There it is. The reason for the disagreement. I do do not believe that an oath to uphold the Constitution is an oath to always be a part of the union. If this were a legal contract, I think that it would be very hard to prove your case. For example, you take a job and promise to conform to company policies. You may even sign this promise. However, it would never interpreted to mean that you have to conform to those policies after you quit. Unless the company had a specific policy against quitting, you would not be violating that oath, nor would you be expected to conform to those policies after you found a new job.

There is no place in the Constitution that says that you can't quit, so there is no violation of the oath you are referencing.

I guess you could really stretch the meaning of the oath to mean you can't secede, but then that would be like saying that Obamacare comes under the Commerce clause... or that "general welfare" means anything you want it to.

It's intent that counts... or at least it should.

[mac_truck]

I see you’ve been reduced to name-calling...again.

[Idabilly]

Just calling a spade a spade.

[Non-Sequitur]

You have been officially replaced as king of the coven. This dishonor now falls to Mr. Zak. Sorry, but not even you are as Idiotic as him....

ROTFLMAO!!!!! As I've pointed out before, being called 'idiot' by you is like being called 'ugly' by an orangutan.

[Non-Sequitur]

It would have to be fair in order to ensure a peaceful transition.

Something the Southern states were uninterested in back in 1860-61.

...so the Hague would likely be the only recourse for an independent party.

Or here's a crazy thought. Why not have both sides negotiate and agree upon a fair and equitable settlement of the issues of disagreement before separating? Again, something the Southern states were not interested in in 1860-61. They were bound and determined to separate in the most acrimonious manner possible.

[Non-Sequitur]

I see you’ve been reduced to name-calling...again.

Can you point to a time where he has not resorted to name calling?

[central_va]

All you're really saying is, that if people want to get out from under the rule of the Constitution, they can mount an insurrection to make it stick. But if so ... there is no longer any ground for complaint if the government against which they acted, undertakes a Constitutionally authorized action to suppress said insurrection.

You are scary, I hope you don't have children.

[Idabilly]

Well, it's about damn time !

Limbaugh: "Secession" is "not the rantings of extreme kookism anymore," "some might say the civil war is already on"...

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008050028

[Non-Sequitur]

Limbaugh: "Secession" is "not the rantings of extreme kookism anymore..."

When it comes from you then yeah, it is.

[central_va]

Tell me, does not having the slavery issue make the Federales cause more difficult? What will be the rallying call this time? I can’t see the North fighting to “preserve the Union”. Much adieu about nothing, the USA is a mile wide and an inch deep.

[Non-Sequitur]

Tell me, does not having the slavery issue make the Federales cause more difficult? What will be the rallying call this time? I can’t see the North fighting to “preserve the Union”. Much adieu about nothing, the USA is a mile wide and an inch deep

You got it bass-ackward once again. Slavery was the Southern cause for rebelling. They started the war to further that aim and the Union fought the war that was forced upon them.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

If there was a secession now, which I find less likely than a true civil war of the English or Roman types, the old confederacy would only be about half of it. Let the leftists secede.