I love Ron Paul but...

[Michael Landon]

I could really do without Ron Paul arguing, over and over, that we shouldn't have had the Civil War..

I tend to watch almost every interview and speech Ron Paul gives and I can only remember a couple of times where this was a topic, Meet the Press and DL Hughley's show. So I believe that your statement is somewhat incorrect. Like other posters have stated, if he's asked about it then he'll answer it but it's not like he's out travelling the country giving speech after speech regarding the Civil War.

- ML

 

[Epic]

To brevity; letting the south secede would not absolve the United States from its moral burden to free the humans it enslaved. America made the slaves slaves. That in itself was a crime. America needed to rectify this, letting the slave holding states secede is a cop out. Americans had a moral obligation to free those humans.

You are thinking in aggregates ("America") not individuals.

That is where you go wrong.

 

[Theocrat]

Some Recommended Reading

We've got so many issues right now. I could really do without Ron Paul arguing, over and over, that we shouldn't have had the Civil War.

First of all, you can't change history. To use up your 2 minutes of air time to summarize the most controversial horrific event in U.S. history, that occurred 150 years earlier is not exactly the subject matter that wins anyone over to your current struggles in government.

Second; I totally disagree with him (so, see, there's the bias).

I've made what I considered to be a logical, and very detailed argument why I believe Ron Paul is wrong on this issue. To brevity; letting the south secede would not absolve the United States from its moral burden to free the humans it enslaved. America made the slaves slaves. That in itself was a crime. America needed to rectify this, letting the slave holding states secede is a cop out. Americans had a moral obligation to free those humans. Sure, let the states secede, but they should have allowed it under the condition of freeing the current slaves. They could inhumanely and disgustingly get new people to destroy, rape and torture, but that blood would be on their (Confederate States) hands.

I'm not against secession. I'm against government sanctioned rape, murder, forced imprisonment, forced labor, and destruction of soul to innocent humans.

So, there me and Paul disagree. Notice, the qualifier "government sanctioned" because sanctioning only requires that a good government stand by while the system it created runs free to continue the evil. But none of this is to in any way to mitigate the fact that the north had slaves too, had helped the south with their slave laws, and had done nothing to stop slavery before the war (which in circumstance actually supports my view that the war may have started because of secession, but the real passion was from the pro-slavery versus pro-abolition groups that co-opted the war).
So I've said all this before. But I want to propose a scenario here. A condition of unifying philosophy that is in an attempt to illustrate the illogical and heartless ideas being presented in this "history wishful thinking".

Let's say the north allowed the south to secede. States should have this right. And the north (and federal government) had allowed slavery to be a state issue before secession, so this is their fault in many ways.
Humans do not like to be slaves, and many tried to escape.
Ron Paul; being anti-illegal immigration, and anti-end slavery in the south by force is creating a historical view that if slaves had run from the south into the north after secession, should have been deported back into slavery.
They would be illegal aliens, because their evil government wouldn’t allow legal migration, so literally the only way they could get into the north would be by being illegal immigrants.
For this, they should be deported and sent back into slavery.
If you’re thinking at this point the caveat of “asylum” the modern conception of asylum is only about 60 years old. America would have to have adopted an unprecedented new system to allow runaway slaves into the U.S. Never mind that although freed slaves in the U.S. still had no rights, couldn’t vote, weren’t treated as fully human let alone citizens.

This brings me back to point 1, You Can’t Change History. It’s really easy to just say “Hey, if we didn’t do a, then b-z would be exactly this other way.” But if you have an actual discussion about it, you might find things aren’t so two dimensional. Just as one little example you shouldn’t dare question, if the north allowed the south to secede, the Fugitive Slave Act, which was a back breaking straw for many abolitionists would still be federal law. If it were repealed, if the north promised to give asylum to runaway humans the south might have gone to war anyway on principle (remind anyone of the previous major wars?). Of course, that’s just guessing, based on actual law and historical precedent, which is hardly valid, because You Can’t Change History. Even if the south didn’t go to war over it, the abolitionists wouldn’t disappear just because the south succeeded. There were several slave holding states still in the union. The issue would not have been resolved. Removing the CSA from the discussion, the issue of slavery in the US would continue. To what conclusion? If our imaginary Lincoln allowed secession, maybe he’d just ban slavery in the US. Maybe the slave holding states would then secede and join the CSA. Maybe not. Maybe Lincoln wouldn’t ban slavery, and the people would revolt and destroy the US government to stop slavery (there are “small” instances of this already, slave revolts, John Brown, etc.). Or perhaps the US would ban slavery, but the states that didn’t secede would start a war. I don’t know, were just making stuff up at this point. Entirely factually based arguments, from actual historical events, but still complete nonsense.

Ultimately I bring this up, because Ron Paul’s main reason for defending secession is the defense of individuals against an empirical federal government. This, at the cost of liberty for millions of individuals enslaved by a tyrannical Confederate government. I don’t like that catch. Human suffering and destruction protected, to ensure slave owner’s rights. That’s not justice. But regardless of everything, the Civil War did happen. Slavery ended. This shouldn’t be our modern debate.

Issues are what matter. Certainly, generically, issues such as slavery should be discussed, but this whole fantasy history debate is really clouding pertinent/relevant discussion, and I just wish Ron Paul would focus on that and drop this issue. He could write a book about it. That I’d read. I just don’t want him to use his precious minutes on international television to slip in a jab against the union in between discussions about the Fed or mandatory health insurance.

Promontorium, have you considered reading these two books:



They might give you some better insights as to where Congressman Paul is coming from. I find them to be good primers for a deeper study into the truth about the Civil War and its relation to States' rights and slavery.

 

[fisharmor]

...letting the south secede...

There was no "letting" them do it. They did it. They had the power and they used it. The war was not about not "letting" them secede. It was about invading and conquering a foreign nation.

...would not absolve the United States from its moral burden to free the humans it enslaved.

Yes, but the war did absolve America quite nicely of the moral burden of upholding the rule of law and natural rights within its borders.
Progressivism, socialism, New Dealism - none of the early 20th century happened in a vaccuum, and it was all made possible by Lincoln's decision to make America a place where the individual plays second fiddle to the state.
Your statement is the reason why college students, preachers, and septuagenarian women can be tackled, shackled, and tazed by the police.
They are only trying to shoulder the moral burden we have put on them, to clean up our society.

Sure, let the states secede, but they should have allowed it under the condition of freeing the current slaves.

As opposed to what Lincoln actually did, which was to offer to let the south keep their slaves if they returned to the Union.

I'm not against secession.

Actually, yeah, you are, because you keep referring to the government "letting" the states secede when there was nothing codified anywhere that would allow the fedgov to prevent it. That pretty much pits you against the concept.

I'm against government sanctioned rape, murder, forced imprisonment, forced labor, and destruction of soul to innocent humans.

...so, do you know who Sherman was?
Or that after he was done in the south, he was calling for the extermination of the plains Indians?
How about Lee, who freed slaves he had inherited during the war?
Dude, you don't even really need to scratch the surface to figure out that none of it was about slavery.

Let's say the north allowed the south to secede. States should have this right.

Again, there was no "allowing" them to do it. They had the power and the states still have the power to secede.
All of your other illegal immigration comments are immaterial, because by assuming this was a federal decision, you ignore the US Constitution and the rule of law.
If there is no operative rule of law, then who is and is not an illegal immigrant is moot.

This brings me back to point 1, You Can’t Change History. It’s really easy to just say “Hey, if we didn’t do a, then b-z would be exactly this other way.” But if you have an actual discussion about it, you might find things aren’t so two dimensional.

Your whole soliloquy here assumes that Ron's point is to make people doubt the outcome of the war.
That's not what I get out of it.
You can have the state-programmed reaction, or you can stop and wonder "gee, if slavery wasn't the point, then what was the point?" And then you get started thinking about all sorts of things you wouldn't be dealing with, about how maybe if there wasn't such a successful federal power grab back then, you'd still be able to flush the shit out of your house, or people wouldn't be forced to live in a rape dungeon for smoking a joint.
The point isn't to wave the confederate flag: it's to point out that federal power grabs were always a bad idea.

Ultimately I bring this up, because Ron Paul’s main reason for defending secession is the defense of individuals against an empirical federal government. This, at the cost of liberty for millions of individuals enslaved by a tyrannical Confederate government. I don’t like that catch. Human suffering and destruction protected, to ensure slave owner’s rights. That’s not justice. But regardless of everything, the Civil War did happen. Slavery ended. This shouldn’t be our modern debate.

If you mean imperial, then I agree. Regarding the suffering... perhaps if they were being slaughtered outright I'd agree with you. But we're talking about the war that took more American lives than all others. That number is never going to be topped. And with our new found nationalism in place, how many more American lives did it cost in the 20th century?

I take great exception to the notion that our debate must somehow be modern. Indeed, if you are not willing to look at old debates in search of the truth, there is nothing to say to you. Truth is truth no matter what time it is from. Facts do not cease to be facts simply because you ignore them.
The 1861-65 war was not a war about slavery; it was a war about federal dominance, a war about empire, and a war against freedom. Throwing the slavery mud marks the thrower as someone who is for federal dominance, for empire, and against freedom.

I just don’t want him to use his precious minutes on international television to slip in a jab against the union in between discussions about the Fed or mandatory health insurance.

He's not a soundbite politician.
This sort of talk is what makes him different.
It makes him a man with a package philosophy.
If you don't want him to talk about certain subjects, you're taking items out of the package.
I say, the more different subjects where he can apply a philosophy of liberty, the better.

 

[tremendoustie]

If the South suceeded in seceding then it becomes foreign.
I thought we, America, shouldn't interfere in other countries's problems?
If we should have prevented slaverly in the new Confederacy then shouldn't we in other countries now as well?
I also think that slavery would be gone by now.
I also think that it would have been better for the Union and the Con. if they were separate than it is for them joined.

So you say that they shouldn't be able to leave because then slavery would be legal and we couldn't stop the badness, technical word, it brings?

Let me clarify. Independent groups in the north should have financed and formed commando groups to rescue slaves. I wasn't suggesting it be paid for by tax (extortion) money.

 

[tjeffersonsghost]

The 1861-65 war was not a war about slavery; it was a war about federal dominance, a war about empire, and a war against freedom. Throwing the slavery mud marks the thrower as someone who is for federal dominance, for empire, and against freedom.

I agree the war was about states rights. It was about the states right to own slaves. Sorry guy it was about slavery although the south did indeed have other beefs but the major issue was about slavery and there is no denying this.

The issue came down to a human rights issue or a states issue although the human rights factor didn't come into play till late in the war. He was all for making slavery permanent in the south for existing states but in return he wanted slavery to be halted to the existing states and not to be spread into new states. The south knew what would of inevitably happened and that is as the free states started to outnumber the slave states they will kill slavery legislatively. That is why they just opted for secession instead of the Corwin Amendment.

The big issue was slavery and there is no denying this although the Federal Government was glad to exploit the issue to further consolidate power just like they do on every other issue.

 

[fisharmor]

I agree the war was about states rights. It was about the states right to own slaves. Sorry guy it was about slavery although the south did indeed have other beefs but the major issue was about slavery and there is no denying this.

Missouri, Kentucky, Deleware, West Virginia, Maryland, Oklahoma, and the New Mexico territory.
Those are seven denials of the "it was about slavery" theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(American_Civil_War)

I will grant that slavery was a proximate cause of the war.
It was not the ultimate cause and there's plenty denying this.

 

[tjeffersonsghost]

I will grant that slavery was a proximate cause of the war.
It was not the ultimate cause and there's plenty denying this.

Ok if you won't believe me (A guy who has probably forgotten more history then most know) then will you believe the words of the people actually seceding? Below is a link of the Declaration of Causes of Secession for Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Georgia. If you read each one you will see that slavery is the reason for secession.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Literally only a few sentences talk about other grievances like the north favoring shipping interests and what not. 95% of the articles are about slavery.

I promise you one thing about the border states. If Lincoln would of included them in the EP you would of seen them secede immediately.

 

[Vessol]

I mean it's totally not possible that Europe peacefully got rid of slavery and didn't need a war.

It's sad that so many even here are deluded into thinking that the Union was the good guys and the Confederacy was the bad guys, both were morally gray for the most part.

However considering the cost outweighing the production benefits, slavery in the South would have ended without the help of legislation by the late 1800's at the max. I also imagine they wouldn't consider blacks as second class citizens as they did during Jim Crow times, which were mainly created by resentment and trying to lash out at someone for the South's harsh treatment by the North during the Reconstruction times.

They probably would have gained the same rights and equallity under the law the same time Northern Blacks got them(mid 1900's).

 

[silus]

We've got so many issues right now. I could really do without you guys arguing, over and over, that we shouldn't have had the Civil War.

 

[TCE]

History is not history, it means everything. Think about if modern politicians would idolize Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (before their presidencies) instead of FDR, TR, and Lincoln. Can you imagine how different this country would be? We wouldn't even recognize it.

 

[Vessol]

People who say 'history is history' are the ones whom are prone to forget history and its many lessons.

There is a reason why in American classrooms, history is not a stressed subject or one that is really cared about.

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

I agree with the OP. The Civil War happened 150 years ago, get over it, whatever your view is. The whole argument is moot.

And Theocrat, I could point you to 1000 books that support the North in the Civil War, do you really think that a book written by H. W. Crocker III (a guy that lives on an old Confederate Military encampment, wrote a book about the glory and triumph of the Catholic Church for 2000 years and another one about "Terrorist Hunting") could possibly convince someone otherwise? Thanks to the internet, anybody with any crackpot ideas can link someone to "credible evidence" to support their ideas.

 

[Vessol]

Except for the fact that clowns like Obama, thanks to our brainwashing classrooms, spread the idea that somehow Lincoln was some kind of great American hero.

The echos of the past live on to this day and always will, you do them and yourself a great disservice for simply trying to shrug them off and say it doesn't matter. They want you to say that.

I'll take your quote and change it around a bit
"The Federal Reserve was formed 90 years ago, get over it, whatever your view is. The whole argument is moot."

History is not something set in stone. It is something that is always living. Whether it be in the lessons it teaches or the distortion of facts within the future. You'll find very little broad history is factual as those who altered it to their own benefit did it without anyone caring, because after all 'history is history'

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

People who say 'history is history' are the ones whom are prone to forget history and its many lessons.

There is a reason why in American classrooms, history is not a stressed subject or one that is really cared about.

And that reason is because in our society, the demand for education is in more practical fields like business, computer science, engineering, etc. All things that can give you jobs. People who pursue history have a tough time making it financially even if they go with a masters in education (trust me, I have a History degree). So there's no cynical reason for American schools to have a lesser emphasis on history, it's just gearing students to what can help make them more successful.

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

Except for the fact that clowns like Obama, thanks to our brainwashing classrooms, spread the idea that somehow Lincoln was some kind of great American hero.

The echos of the past live on to this day and always will, you do them and yourself a great disservice for simply trying to shrug them off and say it doesn't matter. They want you to say that.

I'll take your quote and change it around a bit
"The Federal Reserve was formed 90 years ago, get over it, whatever your view is. The whole argument is moot."

History is not something set in stone. It is something that is always living. Whether it be in the lessons it teaches or the distortion of facts within the future. You'll find very little broad history is factual as those who altered it to their own benefit did it without anyone caring, because after all 'history is history'

Oh but history is most certainly set in stone, it's the perception of it that keeps changing no matter how flawed that perception can be. And that bolded part of your quote goes right back at you. Ever think that your view of history is flawed because someone you learned it from changed it? Just because there's an "official story" to history doesn't mean that it's not true. After studying history for a nearly a decade, I can tell you that most things aren't as cynical as they seem.

And about the Fed Reserve, not to shift the focus of the argument, but that's a really bad attempt to turn my own words against me. The Civil War is something that happened 150 years ago and is done and over with, the Fed Reserve is still with us in a big way today. Apples and Oranges.

 

[TCE]

And that reason is because in our society, the demand for education is in more practical fields like business, computer science, engineering, etc. All things that can give you jobs. People who pursue history have a tough time making it financially even if they go with a masters in education (trust me, I have a History degree). So there's no cynical reason for American schools to have a lesser emphasis on history, it's just gearing students to what can help make them more successful.

I don't know where you went to school, but for 13 years, I studied math, which I'm never going to use, art, which I'm never going to use, penmanship, science/biology, poetry/Shakespeare/books, all which I am never going to use.

The Civil War setup everything in the north and south, everything. Take North Carolina for instance, they have specific laws on the books because of Reconstruction. Look how the books are written, the South is seen as evil and is shown to be completely in the wrong.

Look at the Presidency and how they use FDR, TR, and Lincoln to justify their actions. History is all around you. Look at the bailout, Hoover had a $1.3 billion (don't quote me on that number) bailout. Everything happening now has happened before. Since no one knows history, we ignore it.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Keep preaching it Dr. Paul.

Your critics would have us believe they actually support secession while simultaneously condemning it.

Your critics would have us believe they actually support nullification but in reality only support nullification if it is used for a moral purpose they agree with such as abolition.

Your critics would have us believe the natural right to the pursuit of happiness does not include the right to change government of the people, by the people, for the people at any time for any reason.

Your critics would have us believe aggression is moral because the north was somehow justified.

Your critics would have us believe the Constitution usurping the Articles of Confederation was moral but the Constitution of the Confederate States was not:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Your critics would have us believe the civil war is not a pivotal point in history that destroyed American traditions of freedom including an unratified 14th Amendment imposing federalized citizenship on already naturalized native born people in which excise taxes can be randomly levied for privileges of Congress despite the rule of naturalization only delegates a power applicable to un-naturalized people.

Your critics would like you to shut up because the more you talk about it the more opportunity your supporters have to wake people up to truth.

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

I don't know where you went to school, but for 13 years, I studied math, which I'm never going to use, art, which I'm never going to use, penmanship, science/biology, poetry/Shakespeare/books, all which I am never going to use.

The Civil War setup everything in the north and south, everything. Take North Carolina for instance, they have specific laws on the books because of Reconstruction. Look how the books are written, the South is seen as evil and is shown to be completely in the wrong.

Look at the Presidency and how they use FDR, TR, and Lincoln to justify their actions. History is all around you. Look at the bailout, Hoover had a $1.3 billion (don't quote me on that number) bailout. Everything happening now has happened before. Since no one knows history, we ignore it.

Of course you won't use most of the stuff you learn in school, the point of a rounded education is to give you an idea of what there is out there and hopefully you find something you like and pursue it. Or if you'd rather skip that whole process, you can do what my highschool physics teacher did...she grew up in Soviet Romania and in 5th grade had to choose between english/history or math/science for the rest of her life. The point of a broad education is to make you a more rounded individual, which hopefully worked for you.

And you do realize that most school books have to be approved by the Texas Board of Education right? You think they have "liberal" views of the Civil War? You should have heard some of the things they were talking about at their latest hearing. There was a huge flap about that not too long ago actually.

I agree with you about the bailout, but that's not my point. I'm not trying to say history isn't important, in fact quite the opposite (again, I have a degree in History). What I'm saying is there's a difference between understanding and having a critical eye toward history, and being outright cynical about it and twisting it to fit your own view of what history should be.

Take this Civil War debate as an example. There are a million books that support the common view of the North being in the right and the South being in the wrong. But there's only a handful of books that support the South (I don't know the actual numbers but I'm sure they're pretty lopsided). What people here seem to be doing is ignoring the millions of books that support the North and religiously following the books that support the south just because it's convenient for their world view. See what I mean? Ignoring history works both ways.

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

Keep preaching it Dr. Paul.

1. Your critics would have us believe they actually support secession while simultaneously condemning it.

2. Your critics would have us believe they actually support nullification but in reality only support nullification if it is used for a moral purpose they agree with such as abolition.

3. Your critics would have us believe the natural right to the pursuit of happiness does not include the right to change government of the people, by the people, for the people at any time for any reason.

4. Your critics would have us believe aggression is moral because the north was somehow justified.

5. Your critics would have us believe the Constitution usurping the Articles of Confederation was moral but the Constitution of the Confederate States was not:





6. Your critics would have us believe the civil war is not a pivotal point in history that destroyed American traditions of freedom including an unratified 14th Amendment imposing federalized citizenship on already naturalized native born people in which excise taxes can be randomly levied for privileges of Congress despite the rule of naturalization only delegates a power applicable to un-naturalized people.

7. Your critics would like you to shut up because the more you talk about it the more opportunity your supporters have to wake people up to truth.

1. Who are you talking about?

2. The issue wasn't nullification, it was secession.

3. Because the Slaves in the South sure had a huge say it what happened down there.

4. Many people viewed the South's secession as Treason and therefore punishable and justified. Also, let's not forget who fired the first shot.

5. The Constitution was ratified by all of the States in the Union, the South just decided they would do their own thing.

6. Yes, the age-old American tradition of Slavery was destroyed forever. What a blow to my freedom