sorry, stupid question, not you, the guy you're quoting.Lincoln answered it March 4, 1861:
"One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections, than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all, by the other.
"Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you."
Now which of these other countries that Paul so admires, even idolizes for their wisdom, was in a similar situation? Weren't the bulk of their slaves in distant, subordinate colonies? Could you draw a line on the map to designate free and slave areas, as we could with the U.S.? Either Paul is unforgivably stupid or he is motivated by terribly distorted values.
Sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner, but better late than never, eh?
First off, I don’t feel the Civil War was about slavery. The Slave/Free state ratio was even, there was no way a constitutional amendment ending slavery would have been passed at that point of our history.
The ending of slavery was about the only good thing to come from the Civil War. That said, slavery is just a pretty picture we paint over the Civil War to make ourselves feel good about it. If that was all we were trying to accomplish, a much cheaper compromise would have been to buy and free all slaves. That is all Paul is really saying.
I know it’s a movie, but I watched National Treasure a couple weeks ago, and Nicholas Cage says his favorite president was Lincoln. His line goes something like this, “before Lincoln, they said THESE United States, after Lincoln, they said THE United States”. He said it like it was a good thing. This was not a good development, it has led to the ever expanding ever enchroaching government of today. IMO, Lincoln was about as bad a president we’ve ever had.
Our nation came into being as a collection of states who banded together for protection and trade reasons.If some state wants to go, let them. Don’t waste 600k lives just to build a stronger federal government.