First, I applaud you asking these questions.
Yeah, this is the only issue I don't fully understand where he stands.
Regarding it being left up to the states.......isn't that the exact opposite of what Abraham Lincoln did with the Emancipation Proclamation by declaring Slavery rights revoked instead of leaving it up to the states? I know the Civil War wasn't specifically fought over slavery. But I thought that was the whole point of Lincoln's "A house divided cannot stand." As he said, we cannot go on being a country half slave and half free.
Yes, Abraham Lincoln was absolutely opposed to the notion of states' rights. Lincoln was a centralist. You have no doubt heard people talking around here about Hamilton as the centrist that gave us the first national bank... the progression of idealogy goes Hamilton -> Clay -> Lincoln. Each one studied and put on a pedestal the one before.
If left up to the states, wouldn't that be exactly what we have on our hands? Was Abraham Lincoln wrong on defining human rights universally instead of letting the states decide?
Lincoln took the country to war because he wanted to enforce a central government view of things. Slavery was an issue he used to popularize his actions to some parties (but not all parties, and not even everyone in the north, which was philosophyically more racist than the south). This is very comparable to the current attacks from the MSM against Ron Paul with respect to the welfare state/poor, nationalized medicine, Iraqis who need freedom, etc. It is a standard political ploy. But the central issue of the civil war was nationalizing the government vs. keeping the power divided between the states, and yes, I would say Lincoln was wrong both in his beliefs and his actions in defense of those beliefs.
Yeah, that's what I understand too. It just seems to contradict what was done with slavery and segregation.
But maybe someone can brush me up on my history. Did the US not force the state's hands on the slavery issue? Maybe each state did eventually repeal slavery, I don't know. I'm asking the question.
What about segregation? Was that state decided? Could a state segregate people if it wanted to?
Lincoln forced the states' hand on the states' rights issue. He used slavery to do this, he used other issues as well (protectionist tarrifs, a new national bank, and other issues came into play as well).
The states did not repeal slavery individually because they never got the chance. It would no doubt have happened: slavery was a hot topic worldwide at that point, and other nations were dealing with it legally. The US was the only country that ended it as part of a war. It was heading out because of moral concerns as well as economic ones; the industrial revolution was making slave labor obsolete. Dr. Paul mentions this in the first Bill Maher interview.
Instead, there was a war, the nationalizers won, and as part of their centralization demands they ended slavery with constitutional amendments in a way that extended the national government reach into the states. This is what the war was really about.
I've heard Ron Paul say that we have to change people's minds individually and then let them voice their opinions on the state level. Maybe that is what happened in the cases above (slavery, segregation, etc). Just wondering if that was the case or if it is a Federal law. Thanks again for any input. I'm just looking to be educated on the matter.
It is what happened in every other country in the world that ended slavery peacefully. It is not what happened here, though it would have.
