AOL - "Ron Paul says Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War. Do you agree?"

[MsDoodahs]

For some reason, I can't vote when the page is brought up.

Same here.

 

[srps2233]

I do think that Lincoln was wrong, especially in the measures he took to suppress those against the war in the North. However, keep in mind that the Confederacy was not attacked merely for seceding--they fired first upon a Federal ship shipping food to Fort Sumter. DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" is a very sensationalist book. There are plenty of other less biased sources which reach the same conclusion without twisting or half-reporting incidents. So in short I agree, but probably not for the same reasons.

 

[hypnagogue]

The more I think about it, the more annoyed I get with Russert for bringing this issue up. It has no bearing on current political issues, and as I'm sure he was aware, is very emotionally charged. I suspect Tim new full well what Ron's position was. I also have to suspect that he knew that the vast majority of people in this country revere Lincoln and believe the Civil War was a war against slavery.

Not only do we have to explain the complex issues of today but now we have to explain the complex issues of 150 years ago.

 

[LibertiORDeth]

I do think that Lincoln was wrong, especially in the measures he took to suppress those against the war in the North. However, keep in mind that the Confederacy was not attacked merely for seceding--they fired first upon a Federal ship shipping food to Fort Sumter. DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" is a very sensationalist book. There are plenty of other less biased sources which reach the same conclusion without twisting or half-reporting incidents. So in short I agree, but probably not for the same reasons.

Alright, just put the book on hold at the library.

 

[Maz2331]

I looked up some numbers, just out of interest.

The financial cost of the war for the North was $6,190,000,000 (no idea if this is in 1860's dollars or inflation adjusted) by a 1879 estimate. A further $3,300,000,000 was spent on veterans and such by 1906. So approx. $9,5 billion (over $191 billion in 2006 dollars?).
Source

Apparently there were 4 million slaves in the US in 1860.
Source

The closest average slave price info I could find was from 1809; $381. No idea if this is accurate for 1860, but I'll use it. $381 seems to translate to $214 in 1860 dollars.
Source

So, assuming the info I found is at all correct, the total worth of the slave population in the US in 1860 was around $856,000,000. So the North could have offered triple prices, and the sum would have still been under $3 billion. When contrasted with only the $6,2 billion in direct war costs, I think it is safe to say that buying and freeing the slaves would have been the preferred method. Not to mention the million or so still alive...

Feel free to correct my numbers, if I got them wrong. I'm feeling a bit groggy due to flu medicines.

While financially it makes sense, that would not have worked. The Southern states were culturally married to the institution of slavery, and any abolition steps like that would have been fought tooth-and-nail to the end. Neither economically nor socially was the society down there ready to accept freeing the slaves regardless of how much money was offered. They considered it a matter of "principle" and not something that would be compromised on.

Really, what Lincoln should have done is let the Confederacy go its own way. Automation and industry was growing rapidly, and would certainly have made slave labor more expensive than the alternatives, and eventually it would have collapsed under its own inefficiency. Most likely, the southern states would have re-joined the Union over the course of a few decades for economic advantage and protection from Mexico and other foriegn powers.

 

[LinkClan]

After reading "Why Now Freedom!" by James Kennedy and Walter Kennedy, I have been made to wonder if the South was right!


Freedom at all costs!

 

[nate895]

Yes, Lincoln was wrong to fight the civil war.
Lived above the mason-dixon all my life too.
I often wonder what the world would be like today if Thomas Jefferson got his way and ended slavery with the Declaration of Independance.

Every State has the ability to secede from the USA by act of legislature. The southern States were well within their rights to leave, and they were attacked for it.

If they were simply allowed to break away, the industrial centers of the northern states could exert pressure to end slavery simply by not purchasing the raw materials farmed in the South.
The southern states would have had nobody to sell their wares to, and the free market would have spoken VERY loudly that slavery in the land of the free would not be tolerated, and it would not have taken such a horrible toll on the psyche of the nation.

You are correct that states have the right to secede (which is what we should do if RP doesn't win), but the legislature can't secede itself, only a special convention can. A special convention acceded to the Union, only a special convention can secede from the Union.

 

[nate895]

I do think that Lincoln was wrong, especially in the measures he took to suppress those against the war in the North. However, keep in mind that the Confederacy was not attacked merely for seceding--they fired first upon a Federal ship shipping food to Fort Sumter. DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" is a very sensationalist book. There are plenty of other less biased sources which reach the same conclusion without twisting or half-reporting incidents. So in short I agree, but probably not for the same reasons.

When you have a foreign military installation in your territory that the foreign nation is attempting to resupply, there is but little option but to attack.

 

[Charles Wilson]

It seems like Dr. Paul needs to give aol and Russert a reading assignment in regards to the war of northern aggression--starting with Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo's book "The Real Lincoln."
We all know that the 'victors' get to write the history books.

Lincoln Takes Command by John Shipley Tilley, copy right 1941 was well researched. I paid 100 dollars for my copy on Eby.

I also have a 12 volume set of Confererate Military History originally written in 1899. It was reprinted in 1994 by The Archive Society, 130 Locust Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101. Official government documents, including copies of letters written by Lincoln, are included.

The truth cannot be changed, There is no doubt of Lincoln's intentions to invade the South even before he was elected President. Warships were outfitted for an attack on South Carolina before the attack on Fort Sumter by the South Carolina militia. The attack on Fort Sumter at Charleston was provoked as an excuse to launch all out hostilities against the South.

"Some Southerners speculated on the matter even at the time and tried to explain Lincoln's procedure in dealing with the South. "If reunion was his object," one of them wrote in May, 1861, "he showed want of common sense in adopting the course he did. If the restoration of the Union was his object, -- then he is a fool. If his purpose was to drive off all the Slave states, in order to make war on them and annihilate Slavery, then he is a Devil and in the latter supposition I could fight with a hearty good will." That was the Southern point of view."

It was Lincoln's view that the Union, formed in fact by the Articles of Association, matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence, was older than the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association

Dr. Paul is right in his view of Lincoln.

 

[synthetic]

Lincoln and a single $500 donation seems to be more important than Iraq and the economy lately. This AOL poll is just the latest distraction. Too much time is being wasted on this stuff. Iowa is 8 days away.

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Thomas DiLorenzo

It seems like Dr. Paul needs to give aol and Russert a reading assignment in regards to the war of northern aggression--starting with Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo's book "The Real Lincoln."
We all know that the 'victors' get to write the history books.

Did you know that Thomas DiLorenzo is a supporter of Ron Paul!

 

[Charles Wilson]

Lincoln and a single $500 donation seems to be more important than Iraq and the economy lately. This AOL poll is just the latest distraction. Too much time is being wasted on this stuff. Iowa is 8 days away.

Your point is well taken but voters should have some knowledge of the history that got us to this point in time and the problems we face. We keep electing the same types of folks over and over and we continue to get the same results. With out Ron Paul, or someone like him, a day of reckoning is coming as far as the economy is conerned that is going to hurt most of us.

 

[pahs1994]

people are freaking out about this on aol.. this really hurts our cause, even if he is right, alot of people see Abe as the ender of slavery so you cant touch him

 

[Charles Wilson]

people are freaking out about this on aol.. this really hurts our cause, even if he is right, alot of people see Abe as the ender of slavery so you cant touch him

Maybe in the long run -- who knows -- but the truth will set us free in South Carolina. The citizens in South Carolina and their ancester's have been unfairly ridiculed and demonized for over a hundred years now. It just may be time for vindication in that State.

I predict that South Carolina will provide Ron Paul the momentum he needs to go all the way to the White House.

 

[abers076]

The more I think about it, the more annoyed I get with Russert for bringing this issue up. It has no bearing on current political issues, and as I'm sure he was aware, is very emotionally charged. I suspect Tim new full well what Ron's position was. I also have to suspect that he knew that the vast majority of people in this country revere Lincoln and believe the Civil War was a war against slavery.

Not only do we have to explain the complex issues of today but now we have to explain the complex issues of 150 years ago.

I agree, I believe somewhat that this is a systemic problem(or solution) with this whole campaign, because when you apply the platform's philosophy throughout this country's history, it potentially drastically changes how things played out. Personally I'm kinda glad this issue was brought up, I'm learning a lot about it, and having to rethink it as well. But throwing this out to the sensationalist masses with a STUPID POLL, just perpetuates lies, ignorance, and racism. But then again, AOL is usually nothing but lies, ignorance and racism. At least RP is still completely destroying the Straw Poll, over 200,000 people have voted overall in that thing. I think it will be very close to what the official results will be like.

 

[liberty_rp08]

Keep in mind, we are still fighting the propaganda about the Civil War and WWI, which is perpetuated by being taught in the government schools.

 

[nate895]

I agree, I believe somewhat that this is a systemic problem(or solution) with this whole campaign, because when you apply the platform's philosophy throughout this country's history, it potentially drastically changes how things played out. Personally I'm kinda glad this issue was brought up, I'm learning a lot about it, and having to rethink it as well. But throwing this out to the sensationalist masses with a STUPID POLL, just perpetuates lies, ignorance, and racism. But then again, AOL is usually nothing but lies, ignorance and racism. At least RP is still completely destroying the Straw Poll, over 200,000 people have voted overall in that thing. I think it will be very close to what the official results will be like.

I just checked the straw poll results again, and we're just rollin' the votes in, only NY and NJ are in the Giuliani camp (and we're only a few points behind), and every other state is Paul's.

Hey, and the CSA has overtaken Lincoln in Alabama, Tennessee, and South Dakota. Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag!!

 

[OptionsTrader]

because when you apply the platform's philosophy throughout this country's history, it potentially drastically changes how things played out. Personally I'm kinda glad this issue was brought up, I'm learning a lot about it, and having to rethink it as well

+1

 

[Wwillywoo]

A discussion of this issue is best left to those with esoteric knowlege of the facts and conditions of that time in history.

Very few people in today's world can offer an enlightened view of what could or could not have been accomplished concerning slavery and secession in the 1850's and 1860's.

Keep in mind they were very different, yet related issues.

 

[Seanmc30]

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

I really don't give a damn about "how" or "why" the civil war took place. There are more pressing issues that make a difference to 2008.