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

[MsDoodahs]

It's working here, using Firefox.

Thanks.

 

[Dieseler]

Better poll: Should the South have purchased more repeating rifles.

I say yes.

 

[drednot]

...
2. The North invaded the South (which legally seceded) to avoid having to compete with a neighboring nation whose economy was agricultural with NO LABOR COST. It was economic, not moral. (Hint: you can't compete against someone if you have to pay a dollar to sell something and they don't have to pay anything to sell it.)
..

Well, subsistence level compensation is not "no labor cost" (in fact it's not that much less than what free proletariats were paid at the time).

But the bulk of your point is correct, the war was about preserving a united government and tariffs, rather than moral values, and a truly great president would have avoided it rather than bow to political pressure.

 

[OptionsTrader]

Paul on Bill Maher a while back, on the civil war, slavery, manbearpig, and other food for thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU

Reportedly, Maher later apologized for not going into more important issues when he had ron on again.

 

[ronpaulfan]

Yes, Ron was correct, Lincoln was wrong. Too bad Booth didn't take him out year earlier.

wtf?!?! Don't say stuff like that in a public forum!!

 

[drexhex]

I love how the "deep south" states have the majority being the Yes while everyone else says (for the most part) No.

I am surprised that we're getting so many "Yes" replies, though...

 

[Mark Rushmore]

I love how the "deep south" states have the majority being the Yes while everyone else says (for the most part) No.

I am surprised that we're getting so many "Yes" replies, though...

Yeah, I was pretty pleasantly surprised that like 25% of my northeastern state is still capable of independent thought. I wonder where they are hiding.

 

[Airborn]

good to see Louisiana knows more about the civil war, and that it wasn't mainly about slavery, but about states rights. And had alot to do with cotton and goods from the south.

 

[Ron LOL]

Sadly, I think many people have an embarrassingly poor grasp of history and I assume many will read this poll question and think, "Agree = I am pro-slavery, Disagree = I am against slavery"

Are people as uneducated as I think they might be? I hope not.

The poll is going to be a clusterfuck for this very reason. I really wish they'd do something to clarify the question that's being asked...

 

[skeet]

Why don't we ask the neo-cons if they think it would have been better to have pushed beyond Jerusalem with the first crusade in 1099 In the West's first global war on terror?

What happened - happened. Yes the war was un-neccissary as the US could have purchased the slaves, but it would have been more complicated than that considering the entire agricultural system was based upon the plantation method and the war was more about ecconomics than slavery (even though slavery was integral to the southern ecconomy). The europeans did end slavery and basically replaced it with cheap labor in third world countries where their plantation systems were located, in most cases a fate worse than slavery for the individuals.

I guess what I am really saying is RP's point is that there is always another way besides war - I totally agree, but without the US civil war we would more than likely be two (or more) countries right now - so mistake or not - the question is irrelevent.

I wouldn't play that game with AOL.

(FYI- If the war was about slavery why didn't Lincoln free the slaves at the begining of the war instead of the end? ...and why did he only free the ones in southern states and not border states?)

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

Lincoln was a racist with no respect for due process of law or separation of powers and who concentrated government at the national level. It's amazing that we revere this man so much when by all modern standards he'd be called a fascist.

Dr. Paul is right when he says that there were better ways to end the disgusting institution of slavery. The war cost us more than we would have had to pay for freeing the slaves anyway (military costs plus reconstruction), on top of which we lost a huge swath of our population.

 

[Mark Rushmore]

Lincoln was a racist with no respect for due process of law or separation of powers and who concentrated government at the national level. It's amazing that we revere this man so much when by all modern standards he'd be called a fascist.

I think it's more indicative than amazing.

 

[RPSignbomb]

Dr. Paul made a mistake here - it does not matter if he was right or wrong. Two people in the Rep. party are 100% off limits... and he went after both.

 

[OptionsTrader]

Dr. Paul made a mistake here - it does not matter if he was right or wrong. Two people in the Rep. party are 100% off limits... and he went after both.

Nothing is off limits. They want the Iraq war to be off limits as well. It is not a mistake to stand up to all of the neocons and voice Paul's opposition to the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Selling Liberty in a republic overrun by statists is a tough job.

 

[Mr. Underhill]

Sadly, I think many people have an embarrassingly poor grasp of history and I assume many will read this poll question and think, "Agree = I am pro-slavery, Disagree = I am against slavery"

You're right. The intention here is clear.

Are people as uneducated as I think they might be? I hope not.

Google "stupid Americans" and despair. These people are allowed to vote.

 

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

When discussing slavery and the rise of Lincoln's corporate state, we should always mention that slavery was being abolished relatively peacefully by the underground railroad and most importantly: JURY NULLIFICATION.

 

[synthetic]

Dr. Paul made a mistake here - it does not matter if he was right or wrong. Two people in the Rep. party are 100% off limits... and he went after both.

I think its a non issue brought up to change the discussion from Iraq, the failing economy and Rons booming popularity and fundraising. He believes 600,000 American lives could have been saved. Most reasonable people can accept that position even if they disagree with it. But buying into the distraction and debating a non issue is a mistake people are making.

 

[jumpyg1258]

Over half of Americans agreed that it was right that we killed each other, you can tell AOL is used by those not so bright.

 

[daviddee]

...

 

[JustAnotherV]

the question itself is totally biased

They could at least ask something neutral instead of Luntz-style rigging the question to start with...

This shouldn't even be an "issue" but of course Russert thought this was more important than #$^#^$# ***IRAQ***. Gee I wonder why?


I suggest anyone who does not strongly disagree go vote Yes/not sure on this to provide whatever measure of damage control it can.