Ron Paul on Civil War

gracemonger

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
51
Does anyone know what evidence Ron Paul uses to suport the idea that the purpose of the Civil War was to " get rid of the original intent of the Republic"?

I've looked around and can't find much.
Thanks
 
a lot

There is a ton of stuff out there regarding the myths of Lincoln and the true causes of the war. The best introduction to Lincoln and his beliefs and policies leading up to that war would be "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo and "The South was right" by the Kennedy brothers. They would be great starting points for learning that point of view. If you have any specific questions than feel free to PM me a I have given a lot of speeches on this subject and am somewhat of a historian specializing in that time period. Hope that helps!
 
You can read Thomas DiLorenzo's book The Real Lincoln and Lerone Bennett, Jr.'s book Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream . Both books are cited with tons of documents and letters written by Lincoln himself and high ranking officials.
 
I think the official reasoning for South secession was the issue of states rights. Does the Federal government have the right to ban slavery, and among other things. It's true blood shed could have been avoided if Lincoln withdrew the Federal Troops from Ft. Sumter.

I think the questions we should ask are:

Should we have allowed the South to continue Slavery? If so what would be the impact on the South today or even the world?

and

Would we be better off having a United States of America and a Confederate States of America?
 
I don't really care too much about the issue as it is the place for history phds and has nothing to do with the present. The whole civil war issue was just another way for the media to try and discredit him.
 
actually

I don't really care too much about the issue as it is the place for history phds and has nothing to do with the present. The whole civil war issue was just another way for the media to try and discredit him.

You would actually be astounded as to how many of the same issues we are fighting today started with Lincoln and his administration. That war and Lincoln himself were catalyst for the violations of civil liberties and growth of big Gov't that we see today.
 
"I think the questions we should ask are: Should we have allowed the South to continue Slavery?"

That is a pretty ignorant question since Lincoln was happy to make slavery explicitly Constitutionally protected, endorsing an amendment to that effect in his first inaugural address.

Lincoln only "freed" slaves over which he had no authority.
 
"I think the questions we should ask are: Should we have allowed the South to continue Slavery?"

That is a pretty ignorant question since Lincoln was happy to make slavery explicitly Constitutionally protected, endorsing an amendment to that effect in his first inaugural address.

Lincoln only "freed" slaves over which he had no authority.

Lincoln was one man compared to the many people who wanted to abolish it. Well the Constitution doesn't say anything about freeing slaves. You can't claim property rights violation either. The Constitution applies to US citizens, and since the CS of America seceded, from the US, they are hence no longer protected. So then we get the 13th Amendment banning slavery in the US.

It's technicalities.

It seemed like the South was going to secede anyway, it's not like 1860 was the first time they threatened it. The South also threatened secession in the likelihood Lincoln would be elected President.
 
It seemed like the South was going to secede anyway, it's not like 1860 was the first time they threatened it. The South also threatened secession in the likelihood Lincoln would be elected President.

Don't forget that the first serious secessionist movement in the US was in New England during the War of 1812. They were ready to do it when they thought England was going to win, but after the Treaty of Ghent they quieted down.
 
Back
Top