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

[Ron Paul News]

See also: Facebook Application - Ron Paul News, Widgets, Resources and Tools

Excerpt:
"AWAITING Response from Ron Paul..."

Link (2nd click): http://ronpaulnewsblg.blogspot.com/2007/12/aol-ron-paul-says-lincoln-was-wrong-to.html

 

[Dave Pedersen]

Yes. The states have the right to secede. A union held together by force of arms is not a Union it is a despotic regime. What Lincoln did was to preserve the Union at the expense of constitutional principle. Not rational and not lawful and not honorable. I was born and raised and live in the north. So this opinion is not based on my own cultural upbringing.

 

[Taco John]

here's the real link:

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

 

[Taco John]

I answered honestly: I'm not sure. It's not like this issue is important to me. I trust Dr. Paul is providing an honest, thoughtful answer, which is good enough for me.

 

[mconder]

Watch the movie "Amazing Grace," and the question as to whether slavery could have been ended without the Civil War becomes clear. The movie is about one man's life long struggle against the political machine of the day, overcoming incredible obstacles, and eventually succeeding without a war. The civil war is responsible for the loss of 600K men, untold wealth, ruining the south for over 100 years. I think with some patience, slavery would definitely ended, though without the war there would be The Confederate States to the South.

 

[Kilrain]

Virginia's ratification of the Constitution:

"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions, and under the conviction, that, whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution, ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein, than to bring the Union into danger by a delay, with a hope of obtaining amendments previous to the ratification:

We the said Delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents assent to, and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Foederal Convention for the Government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed, in the words following:

A copy of the Constitution was included in the ratification document."

Secession is (or at least it was) perfectly legal.

 

[Margo37]

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

AOL link (close the http)

 

[mconder]

Wow...the comments are overwhelmingly anti-PAUL. Can we do something about this?

 

[Taco John]

Wow...the comments are overwhelmingly anti-PAUL. Can we do something about this?

Yes. Vote in Iowa...

 

[Brian in Maryland]

Absolutely!

 

[mconder]

So, Ron Paul has an unpopular view on a war that occurred 150 years ago, and people are going to let that get in the way of all the other great views he has. This is absurd.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

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.

 

[Adamsa]

AOL is pro-Giuliani anyway, they hate us.

 

[tkullervo]

I wholeheartedly agree. How is this news? It seems like common sense.

btw, you know drudge is going to pick this up.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

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

 

[rockwell]

So few Americans have a functional grasp of history it's mind boggling and due to the tireless efforts of the NY/Hollywood Axis of Disinfo people think what the masters want them to think.

Yes, the States had every right to secede, No the war between the states was not about slavery, yes, slavery was destined to end inevitably in the West and if anyone really, truly cared about human bondage, they'd stop asking ignorant questions about an event over a century a half in the past and start being a little bit more concerned with modern day slavery in all it's forms, whether sex slaves in Israel, child labor in Asia, real slavery in modern day Africa or tax slavery in the West, all of which take place under the watchful eye of the MSM with nary a peep to be heard.

 

[slantedview]

posted. might want to break the link

 

[PredatorOC]

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.

 

[jaybone]

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.

 

[LibertiORDeth]

I really don't know, I am not knowledgeable enough in that area of history.