Ron Paul on MSNBC (Tucker) tomorrow night, just attacked today

[Yom]

They're talking about him now on MSNBC on Tucker. Someone is in for Tucker, but they're trying to ridicule him about his comments on Abe Lincoln. And they talked about the full page ad in the NY times, and that his support is growing. They do note that he could be important in New Hampshire, though. They're attacking him, still, though. Apparently he's going to be on Tucker tomorrow night, though. Hopefully Tucker Carlson will be on instead, though. The pundits they have on also claim that no historian supports him.

 

[BGDubb]

I support ron paul, but... The Civil War was a bad thing? I mean, come on...

 

[jesshwarren]

The Civil War was bad. Here is what Ron Paul's point is. WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER 600,000 Americans died, dreams smashed & families ripped in 2. It could have all been avoided.

The Civil War was about states rights not Slavery.

 

[Yom]

I doubt it could have been avoided by buying up the slaves, though supporting states' rights might have done it. I understand RP's sentiment and conclusion, but I don't agree with it (the viability, that is, not the idea that it was preferable).

 

[BGDubb]

Yeah, if you want two sovereign nations where there was one. (responding to jesh)

 

[Philadelphia76]

I support ron paul, but... The Civil War was a bad thing? I mean, come on...

Plenty of blame to go around on both sides for the Civil War. That being said- this modern day "Glorious War For Freedom" mythology is utter nonesense... one need only read about the "friendly reception" African-Americans received in the Union Army and the Northern cities after the War to understand that the idea that the Northern side occupied a vastly superior moral high ground compared to the Southern side was a complete joke- and Paul is right to illuminate it.

It was a national tragedy of unparalleled magnitude- and even if you take the Northern view that the Southern States had no right to secede- what's so great about Federal Armies rampaging through the Southern countryside, inflicting incalcuable property damages and casualties on the American citizenry? Perhaps we ought to think twice about lionizing somebody (Lincoln) who oversaw and endorsed such behavior- particularly when he only even set the abolition of slavery as a war aim as a last gasp to keep France and Britain out of the war after two years of humiliating battlefield defeats.

 

[abers076]

I support ron paul, but... The Civil War was a bad thing? I mean, come on...

You must unlearn what you have learned.......

I would think that 600,000 dead americans is not a GOOD thing, wouldn't you?

 

[pickfair]

I am not entirely convinced that we would have been better off without the Civil War, and my view has nothing to do with slavery. The Reconstruction period after the war was just as bad for the slaves - for some even worse - than before the conflict. What I'm uncertain about is whether America could have been one without this war. But this is something nobody can really say for sure. All this is pure conjectures and we can go on and on.

 

[AlexMerced]

Buying the slaves wouldn't of prevented the war but that's not the point

the point is people feel the civil war was about slavery, and if it was Abe Lincoln sacrificed American lives needlessly, which is why ron Paul thinks this logic is absurd.

Abe Lincoln pursued the Civil War to strengthen the central government, take a look at when the current central bank of the time was made and other facts.

 

[skeptic]

Paul is correct about the Civil War

If you look at Lincoln's first inaugural address you will see that the war was not about freeing the slaves but preserving the union at all costs. Lincoln even offered to support a constitutional amendment to protect slavery. Slavery only became the cause about 2 years into the war when it became stalemated. There were draft riots in NYC following Gettysburg. The rioters specifically targeted blacks so I don't think there was a large amount of sympathy in the North for a war to end slavery. It was about preserving the union so that foreign powers couldn't exploit weakness. Further, tariff were mostly paid by the southern exporters but the revenue went for "public improvements" in the North.

Its about time that people READ and UNDERSTAND their own history instead of leaning on what they "learned" in the publik skools.

 

[HarryBrowneLives]

Not the right question

What we should be talking about publicly is this:

I'm sure that the burning question in every Presidential candidates mind when they go on Meet the Press is one that is on the tip of every GOP primary voter's tounge ... THE CIVIL WAR???

The MSM has to throw a bone for the pundits because talking about the present is just too damn painful. Who will vote for Big Government and Endless War???

As I said last week, RP needs to spend that money on a professional PR person skilled at these kinds of venues. I would have coached my candidate to stay on message and absolutely avoid any oddball/setup questions to the point of cutting the interview short if need be. Period. The fact is they can't defend the indefensible so they have to resort to goofy/smear tactics.

 

[skeptic]

Buying the slaves wouldn't of prevented the war but that's not the point

the point is people feel the civil war was about slavery, and if it was Abe Lincoln sacrificed American lives needlessly, which is why ron Paul thinks this logic is absurd.

Abe Lincoln pursued the Civil War to strengthen the central government, take a look at when the current central bank of the time was made and other facts.

The US did not have a central bank at the time. The 2nd Bank of the US was abolished in the 1830's by Jackson. Lincoln did resort to pure fiat money (the greenbacks) and an income tax (later determined unconstitutional).

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

What we should be talking about publicly is this:

I'm sure that the burning question in every Presidential candidates mind when they go on Meet the Press is one that is on the tip of every GOP primary voter's tounge ... THE CIVIL WAR???

I agree. I'm hearing all these pundits asking why RP would even talk about this and what it has to do with the election. However, they fail to notice that it was Russert who brought it up and RP was just answering. It's not like RP just went of on a tangent and started bashing Lincoln.

 

[user]

I am not entirely convinced that we would have been better off without the Civil War, and my view has nothing to do with slavery. The Reconstruction period after the war was just as bad for the slaves - for some even worse - than before the conflict. What I'm uncertain about is whether America could have been one without this war. But this is something nobody can really say for sure. All this is pure conjectures and we can go on and on.

What? Aside from the slavery issue, we would all be better off if the South had been let go. How do you think the neocons win elections? If the blue states weren't forced to subsidize the red states anymore, the red states would have to adapt to keep up.

 

[Daveforliberty]

Reading Lincoln's first inaugural address makes it clear that the Civil War was not about slavery. Coupled with the fact that Ron Paul is not running on this issue, makes Russert's question disingenuous at the outset. But that's vintage Russert.

It seems to me that Lincoln was predisposed to go to war to "save" the union, and was just waiting for an excuse to do so. In the inaugural speech he keeps saying to the south, in essence, 'I mean you no harm, BUT if there's any violence, I'll have to respond. The last thing Lincoln wanted to do was go to the Supreme Court to get a ruling on State's rights to secede.

Therefore Lincoln's principles and prejudices were worth 600,000 dead. When you look at his refusal to consider options other than war, and his handling of civil liberties during the war, and compare him to the current "decider," he doesn't look so "great" after all.

 

[Just Come Home]

I don't understand the dynamics of the civil war all that well... Of course history has been tainted by the winners. What I do understand is that whatever Dr. Paul's position on the civil war is, I'm sure he came to it after much research and thought on the matter. That's good enough for me to at least consider that there is another side to the story worth considering.

 

[Just Come Home]

Also, I wanted to note that I'm incredibly curious how this position affects the voters in South Carolina...

 

[specsaregood]

I think the important thing to note is that, "We should ALWAYS question the need for war." The Civil war may have been unavoidable, but that is not the real viewpoint to take.

"We should ALWAYS question the need for war."
If more people had done that, we would most likely have not gone into Iraq.

 

[Janet0116]

What we should be talking about publicly is this:

I'm sure that the burning question in every Presidential candidates mind when they go on Meet the Press is one that is on the tip of every GOP primary voter's tounge ... THE CIVIL WAR???

The MSM has to throw a bone for the pundits because talking about the present is just too damn painful. Who will vote for Big Government and Endless War???

As I said last week, RP needs to spend that money on a professional PR person skilled at these kinds of venues. I would have coached my candidate to stay on message and absolutely avoid any oddball/setup questions to the point of cutting the interview short if need be. Period. The fact is they can't defend the indefensible so they have to resort to goofy/smear tactics.

BING-FUCKING-O!!!

 

[peter_lifton]

I support ron paul, but... The Civil War was a bad thing? I mean, come on...

The civil war wasn't about slavery. Neo-cons went back and rewrote history to make it politically incorrect to be against the civil war by turning it into a civil rights war.