# Think Tank > History >  Ron Paul says Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War. Do you agree? AOL poll

## peznex

h ttp://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/26/hot-seat-lincoln-wrong-to-fight-civil-war/?ncid=NWS00010000000001

New Poll up on AOL.

----------


## qwerty

Can´t see it...

----------


## peznex

Strange. Works for me?

----------


## Ron LOL

A _much better_ question to have asked would be "do you understand the argument Ron Paul gave against having fought the Civil War."

----------


## peznex

> A _much better_ question to have asked would be "do you understand the argument Ron Paul gave against having fought the Civil War."


Yeah, stupid polls. F U Frank!

----------


## OptionsTrader

Sadly, I think many people have an embarrassingly poor grasp of history and I assume many will read this poll question and think, "Agree = I am pro-slavery, Disagree = I am against slavery"

Are people as uneducated as I think they might be?  I hope not.

----------


## BigMatt419

Leave it to AOL.

----------


## CanadiansLoveRonPaul

Ron Paul likely cemented some good Southern support with his comments about Abe.

----------


## Real_CaGeD

Dems get to show how skeered they are of RP in this poll.

----------


## Arklatex

Of course we should not have killed our own kind!  There were many better options, like PEACE.  

C'mon guys, some of these states are wising up.  I'm surprised with Maine, and the Virgina's are at the tipping point, South Carolina too.

Go vote!

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Sadly, I think many people have an embarrassingly poor grasp of history and I assume many will read this poll question and think, "Agree = I am pro-slavery, Disagree = I am against slavery"
> 
> Are people as uneducated as I think they might be?  I hope not.


They were educated by the people who fought the civil war and won it.  That's the problem.

----------


## udecker

This makes me livid.

A couple of points:

1.  If we accept that it's ok to kill 600,000 americans for _anyone's_ moral grounds, we're screwed as a nation already.

2. The North invaded the South (which legally seceded) to avoid having to compete with a neighboring nation whose economy was agricultural with *NO LABOR COST*.  It was economic, not moral.  (Hint: you can't compete against someone if you have to pay a dollar to sell something and they don't have to pay anything to sell it.)

The fact that AOL is playing off of the simple, false assumption: "without the civil war there would still be slaves." and then publishing it and encouraging that (faulty) premise.... well..... that's no where near journalism.  It'll get the exact result we would expect.

They might've just as well asked "So-and-so said blacks should still be slaves.  Do you agree?"

----------


## MsDoodahs

It doesn't work for me.  At the bottom of the map area it says "awaiting response from Ron Paul."



What are you guys seeing?

----------


## hambone1982

Anyone with a decent understanding of history will tell you that the civil war was not necessary.

----------


## brumans

> Anyone with a decent understanding of history will tell you that the civil war was not necessary.


Which is probably about 2% of the public

----------


## RevolutionSD

Ron Paul is 110% correct here!
The civil war was Lincoln's war.
He would rather have 100's of thousands of americans dead than to allow the south to secede. Our history books are filled with spin and propaganda, telling us that the war was about slavery, and painting Lincoln as an abolitionist hero.

----------


## MsDoodahs

That's great and all, gents, but can one of you try to SEE the poll and tell me if it is working for you?

Pretty please?

----------


## constitutional

> That's great and all, gents, but can one of you try to SEE the poll and tell me if it is working for you?
> 
> Pretty please?


It's working here, using Firefox.

----------


## Matt Collins

Yes, Ron was correct, Lincoln was wrong. Too bad Booth didn't take him out year earlier.

----------


## constitutional

> Yes, Ron was correct, Lincoln was wrong. Too bad Booth didn't take him out year earlier.


 Man, I don't know what to think of Booth.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> It's working here, using Firefox.


Thanks.

----------


## Dieseler

Better poll: Should the South have purchased more repeating rifles.

I say yes.

----------


## drednot

> ...
> 2. The North invaded the South (which legally seceded) to avoid having to compete with a neighboring nation whose economy was agricultural with *NO LABOR COST*.  It was economic, not moral.  (Hint: you can't compete against someone if you have to pay a dollar to sell something and they don't have to pay anything to sell it.)
> ..


Well, subsistence level compensation is not "no labor cost" (in fact it's not that much less than what free proletariats were paid at the time).

But the bulk of your point is correct, the war was about preserving a united government and  tariffs, rather than moral values, and a truly great president would have avoided it rather than bow to political pressure.

----------


## OptionsTrader

Paul on Bill Maher a while back, on the civil war, slavery, manbearpig, and other food for thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU

Reportedly, Maher later apologized for not going into more important issues when he had ron on again.

----------


## ronpaulfan

> Yes, Ron was correct, Lincoln was wrong. Too bad Booth didn't take him out year earlier.


wtf?!?! Don't say stuff like that in a public forum!!

----------


## drexhex

I love how the "deep south" states have the majority being the Yes while everyone else says (for the most part) No.

I am surprised that we're getting so many "Yes" replies, though...

----------


## Mark Rushmore

> I love how the "deep south" states have the majority being the Yes while everyone else says (for the most part) No.
> 
> I am surprised that we're getting so many "Yes" replies, though...


Yeah, I was pretty pleasantly surprised that like 25% of my northeastern state is still capable of independent thought.  I wonder where they are hiding.

----------


## Airborn

good to see Louisiana knows more about the civil war, and that it wasn't mainly about slavery, but about states rights. And had alot to do with cotton and goods from the south.

----------


## Ron LOL

> Sadly, I think many people have an embarrassingly poor grasp of history and I assume many will read this poll question and think, "Agree = I am pro-slavery, Disagree = I am against slavery"
> 
> Are people as uneducated as I think they might be?  I hope not.


The poll is going to be a cluster$#@! for this very reason.  I really wish they'd do something to clarify the question that's being asked...

----------


## skeet

Why don't we ask the neo-cons if they think it would have been better to have pushed beyond Jerusalem with the first crusade in 1099 In the West's first global war on terror?  

What happened - happened. Yes the war was un-neccissary as the US could have purchased the slaves, but it would have been more complicated than that considering the entire agricultural system was based upon the plantation method and the war was more about ecconomics than slavery (even though slavery was integral to the southern ecconomy). The europeans did end slavery and basically replaced it with cheap labor in third world countries where their plantation systems were  located, in most cases a fate worse than slavery for the individuals. 

I guess what I am really saying is RP's point is that there is always another way besides war - I totally agree, but without the US civil war we would more than likely be two  (or more) countries right now - so mistake or not - the question is irrelevent. 

I wouldn't play that game with AOL.

(FYI- If the war was about slavery why didn't Lincoln free the slaves at the begining of the war instead of the end? ...and why did he only free the ones in southern states and not border states?)

----------


## Goldwater Conservative

Lincoln was a racist with no respect for due process of law or separation of powers and who concentrated government at the national level. It's amazing that we revere this man so much when by all modern standards he'd be called a fascist.

Dr. Paul is right when he says that there were better ways to end the disgusting institution of slavery. The war cost us more than we would have had to pay for freeing the slaves anyway (military costs plus reconstruction), on top of which we lost a huge swath of our population.

----------


## Mark Rushmore

> Lincoln was a racist with no respect for due process of law or separation of powers and who concentrated government at the national level. It's amazing that we revere this man so much when by all modern standards he'd be called a fascist.


I think it's more indicative than amazing.

----------


## RPSignbomb

Dr. Paul made a mistake here - it does not matter if he was right or wrong.  Two people in the Rep. party are 100% off limits... and he went after both.

----------


## OptionsTrader

> Dr. Paul made a mistake here - it does not matter if he was right or wrong.  Two people in the Rep. party are 100% off limits... and he went after both.


Nothing is off limits.  They want the Iraq war to be off limits as well.  It is not a mistake to stand up to all of the neocons and voice Paul's opposition to the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Selling Liberty in a republic overrun by statists is a tough job.

----------


## Mr. Underhill

> Sadly, I think many people have an embarrassingly poor grasp of history and I assume many will read this poll question and think, "Agree = I am pro-slavery, Disagree = I am against slavery"


 You're right. The intention here is clear.




> Are people as uneducated as I think they might be?  I hope not.


 Google "stupid Americans" and despair. These people are allowed to vote.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

When discussing slavery and the rise of Lincoln's corporate state, we should always mention that slavery was being abolished relatively peacefully by the underground railroad and most importantly: JURY NULLIFICATION.

----------


## synthetic

> Dr. Paul made a mistake here - it does not matter if he was right or wrong.  Two people in the Rep. party are 100% off limits... and he went after both.


I think its a non issue brought up to change the discussion from Iraq, the failing economy and Rons booming popularity and fundraising. He believes 600,000 American lives could have been saved. Most reasonable people can accept that position even if they disagree with it. But buying into the distraction and debating a non issue is a mistake people are making.

----------


## jumpyg1258

Over half of Americans agreed that it was right that we killed each other, you can tell AOL is used by those not so bright.

----------


## daviddee

...

----------


## JustAnotherV

They could at least ask something neutral instead of Luntz-style rigging the question to start with...

This shouldn't even be an "issue" but of course Russert thought this was more important than #$^#^$# ***IRAQ***.  Gee I wonder why?


I suggest anyone who does not strongly disagree go vote Yes/not sure on this to provide whatever measure of damage control it can.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

I just sent a mass e-mail to a bunch of SC guys and it should have made it's way around the country by this evening. That should throw a monkey wrench into their little poll lol

----------


## Politeia

I voted Yes, but I am not an "unrepentant Southerner"; a California liberal Democrat by birth, all my ancestors fought for Lincoln in the "Civil" War, and it wasn't until my 40s that I learned how completely I'd been lied to about it:

1) It wasn't a "civil" war, it was a war of secession, like, say, Croatia seceding from Yugoslavia, and for equally good reasons.

2) It wasn't fought to end slavery, but over economic issues primarily, and Lincoln's purpose was really to convert the United States from a federation of sovereign states into a unitary empire with himself as emperor -- and he succeeded.

3) Not only did it not really end slavery -- it simply transferred ownership of the slaves, by force, from their former masters in the Southern states to the U.S. federal government -- but it also reduced the rest of the population to the status of serfs, who now must report everything we do to the government, and ask for permission for anything we may want to do.

4) Abraham Lincoln, in Congress, January 12, 1848: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. ... Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

5) Passions on both sides having been stirred to fever pitch (not by accident), the Confederacy unfortunately allowed itself to be provoked into "firing the first shot", thereby "starting" a war it couldn't win -- at least not by conventional means, and unfortunately they were too "honorable" to resort to the guerrilla tactics that could have prevailed.

See books "The South Was Right" and "The Real Lincoln" for an eye-opening education.

----------


## Politeia

> It's working here, using Firefox.


Or the new Netscape v.9 (it belongs to AOL), which is Firefox repackaged -- kind of a nostalgia hit, I like it.

----------


## OptionsTrader

> Over half of Americans agreed that it was right that we killed each other, you can tell AOL is used by those not so bright.


If an AOL poll is hosted in the forest, and it falls, does it make a noise without Ron Paul people commenting?

----------


## Politeia

> Man, I don't know what to think of Booth.


John Wilkes Booth saw himself as a modern equivalent of Marcus Junius Brutus, the assassin (the most famous of a conspiracy, actually) of Julius Caesar, Rome's last dictator who paved the way for its conversion from Republic to Empire. I believe Booth even shouted "Sic semper tyrannis!" ("Thus always tyranny!") as he fired the shot.

Many have characterized Lincoln as "America's Caesar", but I have to say, having read much about him, I find Gaius Julius Caesar a much more engaging figure than Lincoln. Caesar I would have liked to know, but not Lincoln, despite his undoubted rhetorical talents.

----------


## RoyalShock

At the risk of this turning into a history lesson, I need some help here.  This is what I understand the timeline and catalytic events/statements to be:

- The South believed that slavery was a cornerstone of the soon-to-be Confederacy.  Thus, they felt slavery must expand or it would die.

- Lincoln was elected president and at some point said he didn't think the Union could continue to exist as half-free, half-slave.

- The South then began to secede, forming the Confederate States.  This put Union-controlled lands (forts) in Confederate territory.  The South attempted to purchase these lands but were denied.

- The South attacks Ft. Sumter, prompting Lincoln's call for states to send militias to defend these forts, starting the Civil War.

- It is also my understanding that Lincoln's original plan was for a gradual compensatory emancipation, but the plan was rejected by all but one Union state.

So, slavery was the mitigating factor bringing states-rights to the forefront, ultimately leading to secession.  On this I understand Lincoln's role in bringing on the war.  What I don't get is the criticism of him regarding the emancipation issue.  The Lincoln critics, on one hand, say the war was an empirical, economic war to maintain the Union, but then say the 600k+ casualties could have been avoided by compensatory emancipation (which it seems would have still ticked off the southern states and triggered a conflict/war).

The two seem mutually exclusive to me.  I'd be genuinely grateful if someone could explain what I'm missing here or where my logic is askew.

Thanks!

----------


## Politeia

> At the risk of this turning into a history lesson, I need some help here. ... So, slavery was the mitigating factor bringing states-rights to the forefront, ultimately leading to secession.  On this I understand Lincoln's role in bringing on the war.  What I don't get is the criticism of him regarding the emancipation issue.  The Lincoln critics, on one hand, say the war was an empirical, economic war to maintain the Union, but then say the 600k+ casualties could have been avoided by compensatory emancipation (which it seems would have still ticked off the southern states and triggered a conflict/war).


I'm not an expert on the history, and wouldn't have time if I were, but if you want to learn more, a worthwhile place to start might be:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html

Also:
http://www.americascaesar.com

And this book, if you can find it, was my first introduction to systematic "Civil" War revisionism:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565540247

No, of course none of these are "unbiased", but then neither is anyone else. Read all "sides", study, and think for yourself.

----------


## Lord Emanon

the most publicity AOL has given Ron Paul and its in these "polls" that look to smear him.

Who owns AOL, and why are they trying their damndest to make Ron Paul look back - maybe someone should ask that in the comments section.

----------


## Paulitician

AOL sucks anyway.

----------


## Paulite

AOLers are truly the dumbest in the internet

----------


## Swmorgan77

> Anyone with a decent understanding of history will tell you that the civil war was not necessary.


Nor was it about "ending slavery". 

Lincoln himself said if he could end the war and preserve the Union he would do it even if it meant keeping slavery in the South.

----------


## Liberty Star

AOL has been smearing Ron Paul , why should I waste my time and give their poll any credibility?

Poll declined. 





> A _much better_ question to have asked would be "do you understand the argument Ron Paul gave against having fought the Civil War."


Yep.

----------


## Swmorgan77

Its interesting to me what Ron Paul said about ending slavery instead of through war by having the Federal government buy the freedom of the Souther slaves.  

That very idea was first proposed by an "outsider" (non whig, non-Democrat) Presidential candidate in 1844 named Joseph Smith, Jr.  His platform was starting to get a great deal of enthusiastic response and endorsements in Eastern press when he was killed as a result of a conspiracy in June of 1844.  

Just some food for thought.

----------


## AggieforPaul

This is a huge issue for me. I think it's mentally impossible to read "Dishonest Abe" and "the real Lincoln" by Dr. Thomas J. Dilorenzo, and see Lincoln as anything other than a lying sack of $#@! war mongering tyrant who makes Bush look loving and pacifist by comparison.

Trivia question: Which side released all their slaves first?

Answer: The South.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Man, I don't know what to think of Booth.





> wtf?!?! Don't say stuff like that in a public forum!!




I am a relative of Booth's

----------


## RonPaulVolunteer

*http://news.aol.com/political-machin...ght-civil-war/*

For those tired of all the broken links.

----------


## Gimme Some Truth

This has got to be the stupidest comment I have ever read on the Internet:




Kirk Nakata12:07PMDec 26th 2007

"For me i believe that Ron Paul is trying to put himself above God.

Why do you ask, well all o his campian poster on lawns across the nation what the United States need is Ron Paul. When in truth of the matter what the United States need is God through His Son Jesus Christ.

We have gotten away fromthevery thing that started this great nation and that is the values that God place in the heats of the forefathers of our nation.

We have taken God ot of our government, schools, an homes and have replaced Him with our ideas of how we want to have God in our lifes.

Ron Paul is one I do not want to have in office for our government."

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> This has got to be the stupidest comment I have ever read on the Internet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kirk Nakata12:07PMDec 26th 2007
> 
> "For me i believe that Ron Paul is trying to put himself above God.
> 
> ...


PLEASE for you own sanity don't read what these people write.  You really will go insane or get very bitter if you read this $#@!.  Spend that time trying to find out how to run for Congress or something.

----------


## hypnagogue

Haha! Yeah I saw that one. There are cons to giving everyone a medium to speak...

----------


## maiki

Have not read thread. 

I don't even think Ron was saying it was wrong to fight the civil war per se (for national unity or whatever), but it was the wrong approach to freeing slaves. Buying them out like they did in England or other slave-owning countries would have alleviated far more racial tensions and saved many thousands of lives as well as money, and not ravaged the country.

----------


## atilla

> This has got to be the stupidest comment I have ever read on the Internet:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kirk Nakata12:07PMDec 26th 2007
> 
> "For me i believe that Ron Paul is trying to put himself above God.
> 
> ...


 ha ha, he said heats, he's talking about christian sex.

----------


## ggibson1

I dont really see what this has to do with Lincoln. Read his 1st inaugural address. He talks there that civil war is not needed. So that means the country already had civil war talk going on before he became president. The north had been antaganizing the south long before Lincoln got elected... it had been building up for a while. The relious extremists in the north were trying to start a war for a while and the financial leaders in the north were using the slavery issue to further their economic attacks on the south. Though the religious people in the north were right in opposing slavery it would not have come to war if the south had not already seen several attacks on them in Congress in the years before.

Personally I dont think the south should have left the union but they had done so not as a first act but instead after fighting it out in the Congress for years. We have all seen our partisan politicians act ruthlessly and without concern for the rights of the other side... this same way of antaganizing each other was going on back in the 1800s also.

If the south was going to be convinced not to leave the union it would have had to be done in the years before Lincoln got elected... if I am not mistaken the confederacy had elected their president before Lincoln had even been elected...

----------


## d'anconia

Bump.  We need to keep voting in this bad boy.

----------

