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

[raiha]

Upon the whole, after the most careful consideration of this case which the pressure of other duties has admitted, I am compelled to the conclusion that no civil war existed between this Government and the States in insurrection till recognized by the Act of Congress 13th of July, 1861; that the President does not possess the power under the Constitution to declare war or recognize its existence within the meaning of the law of nations, which carries with it belligerent rights, and thus change the country and all its citizens from a state of peace to a state of war; that this power belongs exclusively to the Congress of the United States, and, consequently, that the President had no power to set on foot a blockade under the law of nations, and [67 U.S. 635, 699] that the capture of the vessel and cargo in this case, and in all cases before us in which the capture occurred before the 13th of July, 1861, for breach of blockade, or as enemies' property, are illegal and void, and that the decrees of condemnation should be reversed and the vessel and cargo restored.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY, Mr. Justice CATRON and Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, concurred in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Nelson.
How many people know that Lincoln got into such a rage with Chief Justice Taney for opposing his dirty little war based on nothing honourable (just a Whig agenda including centralization of banks and federal power ie profits)that he issued a warrant for his arrest. He was finally talked out of it by his lawyer. Nice huh, an 80 year old Chief Justice of the Supreme Court into the slammer, but hey, he'd thrown thousands of newsmen and editors and dissidents into klink by then so no worries!]

 

[chipvogel]

Its just a discussion.....but it is interesting that just discussion on this issue is so heated.

He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future. George Orwell

I hope Ron Paul will go into more detail about how our history has been taught to control the outcome of current elections.

 

[srps2233]

How many people know that Lincoln got into such a rage with Chief Justice Taney for opposing his dirty little war based on nothing honourable (just a Whig agenda including centralization of banks and federal power ie profits)that he issued a warrant for his arrest. He was finally talked out of it by his lawyer. Nice huh, an 80 year old Chief Justice of the Supreme Court into the slammer, but hey, he'd thrown thousands of newsmen and editors and dissidents into klink by then so no worries!]

Taney did remark that because of his Ex Parte Merryman decision he might be in jail by nightfall, but Lincoln made no such warrant. Lincoln, for the most part, ignored Taney but did not actively seek to suppress him. The laws concerning the newspapers and so forth were made by the Congress--specifically Chairman Hickman--not Lincoln. Lincoln and Stanton actually pardoned many of them; the majority of the tyranny was under Seward and Cameron. Please, there are valid points to be made against Lincoln without resorting to fiction and conspiracy theories only found on Wikipedia.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

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.

According to James Madison, the states do not have the right to secede.

The Constitution was not ratified by state legislatures, but rather by special ratifying conventions of representatives elected directly by the people. This provision was the the idea of James Madison himself.

For a secession to be legal, they would have to hold special elections and then have a special convention. None of the southern states did this.

The one exception to this rule would be Texas.

 

[Philadelphia76]

3/4's of my family ancestors from that era were decorated Confederate veterans. The main points that have been passed on from that generation to this one over the last 140+ years were: (1) for Southern politicians- the war was primarily about States' rights and the Southern rejection of the Federal Government charting the course for the regional economy and dictating social norms without the Constitutional authority to do so- as well as a belief that the original US Constitution was an agreement among the States to work together on certain "national" issues- but NOT to subsume themselves to a "Federal" government- and that therefore each State had reserved the right to secede (in one form or another); (2) for almost all Southern soldiers- the joining of the Confederate Armed Services and the subsequent use of force quickly became absolutely mandated by the presence of large Northern armies marching on their States, cities, towns and farms; (3) Lincoln was a "sly", "ambitious", "complex" man that has been "overly lionized" and who had no problem unleashing the full power of the Federal Government upon the Southern States without regard for property rights, rules of war, or civilian casualties- as demonstrated by his eager support for Generals Butler, Sherman, Grant, etc. among others- even well before cloaking his "cause" with the moral "highground" of ending slavery 2 years into the conflict; BUT (4) that it was indeed a national tragedy that Mr. Lincoln was assasinated as he was far more inclined to work towards a benevolent, rapid readmission of the Southern States than President Johnson or the Radical Republicans were.

As far as Ron Paul's criticisms of President Lincoln go- I basically agree. In truth, though, the real blame probably lies with the Presidents and politicians of 1840's and 1850's Washington- who too readily settled for compromises or buried their head in the sand- rather than confront the growing storm clouds. It would have been no easy task to pay for all the slaves- and I'm sure that the Southern slave-holders would have stalled, bickered and quarrelled every step of the way- but it sure would have been better than 4 years of bloodshed, 600,000 American deaths, and generations of hatred. I suspect the main problem though was that both sides expected a relatively easy, painless contest- and with their honor on the line- opted to resort to war rather than reason. Once THAT ball got rolling- I suppose there was little Lincoln could have done in early 1861 to stop it all even if he had wanted to.

 

[Philadelphia76]

According to James Madison, the states do not have the right to secede.

The Constitution was not ratified by state legislatures, but rather by special ratifying conventions of representatives elected directly by the people. This provision was the the idea of James Madison himself.

For a secession to be legal, they would have to hold special elections and then have a special convention. None of the southern states did this.

The one exception to this rule would be Texas.

Fair enough. Southern secession may have not passed the "legal formalities" required. I do think it's fair to conclude IMHO though that even if the Southern states had gone through the process of special elections and conventions that the Northern States would not have recognized their separation from the US anyway.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Fair enough. Southern secession may have not passed the "legal formalities" required. I do think it's fair to conclude IMHO though that even if the Southern states had gone through the process of special elections and conventions that the Northern States would not have recognized their separation from the US anyway.

I agree with that.

 

[raiha]

Lincoln made no such warrant. Lincoln, for the most part, ignored Taney but did not actively seek to suppress him

.

Didn't go near Wiki! Here's the deal...i won't patronize you, if you don't patronize me.

Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Taney but then certain questions were posed: Who should make the arrest and where should the Chief Justice be imprisoned?" F. Calhoun, "The Lawmen: US Marshalls and their Deputies, 1789-1989 (Washington D.C., 1989) pp.102-4.
According to the federal marshal, Ward Hill Lamon, after "due consideration the administration was determined to arrest the Chief Justice." He recalled: "It was finally determined to place the order of arrest in the hands of the US Marshal for the District of Columbia." (Ibid) Lincoln personally gave the warrant to Marshal Lamon, instructing the marshal to "use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders." Lamon decided to not serve the warrant.

Professor Lieber (a staunch unionist and author of the famous Lieber Code) also noted that Lincoln gave Marshall Lamon the arrest warrant for Taney along with permission to make the arrest.
There are two corroborating sources: "The Memoirs of Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Vol. 1 (Boston, 1789) P. 240; and George W. Brown, "Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April, 1861: A Study of the War (Baltimore, 18887), p.90.

 

[Syren123]

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

Only goes to show the depth and breadth of ignorance in the country.

Govt schools: 1
Truth and education: 0


Go out and walk your precincts. Don't let ignorance win.

 

[phoenix1861]

Those curious about the war and the legality of secession may be interested in the following books on those subjects:

The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked, by Thomas DiLorenzo
Is Davis a Traitor? by Albert Taylor Bledsoe
The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, by Jefferson Davis
From Union to Empire: Essays in the Jeffersonian Tradition, by Clyde Wilson and Joseph Stromberg
A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, by Alexander H. Stephens
When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, by Charles Adams.
One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution, by Robert Hawes

 

[srps2233]

.

Didn't go near Wiki! Here's the deal...i won't patronize you, if you don't patronize me.

Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Taney but then certain questions were posed: Who should make the arrest and where should the Chief Justice be imprisoned?" F. Calhoun, "The Lawmen: US Marshalls and their Deputies, 1789-1989 (Washington D.C., 1989) pp.102-4.
According to the federal marshal, Ward Hill Lamon, after "due consideration the administration was determined to arrest the Chief Justice." He recalled: "It was finally determined to place the order of arrest in the hands of the US Marshal for the District of Columbia." (Ibid) Lincoln personally gave the warrant to Marshal Lamon, instructing the marshal to "use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders." Lamon decided to not serve the warrant.

Professor Lieber (a staunch unionist and author of the famous Lieber Code) also noted that Lincoln gave Marshall Lamon the arrest warrant for Taney along with permission to make the arrest.
There are two corroborating sources: "The Memoirs of Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis, Vol. 1 (Boston, 1789) P. 240; and George W. Brown, "Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April, 1861: A Study of the War (Baltimore, 18887), p.90.

I don't mean to be patronizing, but the thing that scares me is that the MSM keep on trying to link Paul to conspiracy and fringe ideas. I wouldn't put it past Lincoln, but I didn't think there were enough primary documents to support such a claim. I will have to look more into it then, thanks for the sources.

 

[thisisgiparti]

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.

Like any intense manual labor, much of the work done by slaves on tobacco and cotton plantations could have been done by machines. The southern economy was not dependent on slavery; it was just the corruption of some wealthy families driving the practice of keeping slaves. With more political push and a community effort to eradicate slavery, it could have been ended without bloodshed.

 

[thisisgiparti]

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.

I absolutely agree with you. States rights as a principle and not rhetoric is important to Southern voters.

 

[RP4U&ME]

Face it, Russert tossed the question out there because he thought Paul might have a hard time with it, and he did. Ron should have framed it as a states' rights issue but he dropped the ball.
Lincoln was painted into a corner by the decades of inaction perpetrated by the ball-less politicians before him. It's easy to armchair quarterback 150 years later, but how many of you people that say Lincoln was wrong would now sit back and allow Arizona and New Mexico to split off from the Union to form the new nation of 'Mexicana'?
No matter how logically you frame this debate to make Dr. Paul appear to be correct, you just can't expect to be able to impugn the wisdom of one of this nation's most revered Presidents and not get some blowback.

 

[Concerned Supporter]

i actually find his view on this VERY interesting and im open to listening to his arguments

BUT

i wont blinding support his views on this until i hear/read more

 

[superschupp]

done

 

[Hangly Man]

This hurt us.

 

[Hangly Man]

Also who wants to bet that the first page of comments are astroturf.

 

[rp08orbust]

I...though without the war there would be The Confederate States to the South.

That's not necessarily true. Lincoln's economic policies--a central bank and raising tariffs from 20% to 45% on trade between the south and Europe in order to pay for corporate welfare for northern industries--had much to do with secession. The previous generation of southerners almost seceded for exactly the same reasons, though unlike Lincoln, previous administrations had compromised on their big-government ambitions for the sake of maintaining the Union.

 

[xd9fan]

Yes. The states have the right to secede.

God Damn right they do!!